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

[Tony Vargas]

As I have said before, my comments are based on the idea that the PCs are rare.

Which is really a 4e-ism, and wasn't even that solid, then. 4e kinda sorta implies that PCs might be unique, or at least very rare. While earlier editions give demographic numbers that might be called 'rare', they result in a /lot/ of leveled NPCs existing in the world.

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.

Spells, including healing, also being a major resource. Having a cleric didn't suddenly make classic D&D not-attrition-based anymore. It just made attrition of spells critical, making days longer and putting more pressure on casters to conserve spell resources.

How many Rome sized cities does a typical campaign world honestly have though?

Depends on the setting, quite possibly several. Even a town of a few hundred is going to have a few individuals with levels, though - most people will know someone with levels, personally at 1:50 or 1:100.

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.

You'd be surprised what 3rd-world folks are clued into.

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 not abusing the rule, just following it.

You can tweak the mechanics all you want. Nowhere did I say you shouldn't. Heal-from-negatives is certainly a viable solution. I was addressing those who felt that the logical solution to whack-a-mole was coup de grace.

Cool, so long as we're not denying the issue. I thought the point of the CdG thing was not so much a proposed solution as establishing the validity of the problem. At least, that's how I saw it.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Which is really a 4e-ism, and wasn't even that solid, then. 4e kinda sorta implies that PCs might be unique, or at least very rare. While earlier editions give demographic numbers that might be called 'rare', they result in a /lot/ of leveled NPCs existing in the world.

The majority of which are non-adventurers who stay in their nice, cozy cities and mage towers. Who don't generally get into combat and therefore provide very little in-combat healing to the world.

Spells, including healing, also being a major resource. Having a cleric didn't suddenly make classic D&D not-attrition-based anymore. It just made attrition of spells critical, making days longer and putting more pressure on casters to conserve spell resources.

I said that adventures were attrition based. I did not say or imply that having a cleric removed that factor of attrition. I simply stated that you could go adventuring without a cleric. It was feasible. My group did it more than once. And we didn't need crazy house rules or monty haul healing potions to make it possible.

Depends on the setting, quite possibly several. Even a town of a few hundred is going to have a few individuals with levels, though - most people will know someone with levels, personally at 1:50 or 1:100.

Not in my campaign. YMMV

You'd be surprised what 3rd-world folks are clued into.

Sure, all the poor villagers spend their nights huddling around their fires to keep warm while catching up on the latest celebrity gossip on their TVs that haven't been invented because this is a medieval fantasy setting.

That's not abusing the rule, just following it.

It's metagaming, plain and simple. I see that as abusing the rules, but if you don't then that's fine by me.

Cool, so long as we're not denying the issue. I thought the point of the CdG thing was not so much a proposed solution as establishing the validity of the problem. At least, that's how I saw it.

Nope, it was never my intent to deny the issue. I was simply stating that I don't think CdG is a good or reasonable solution to whack-a-mole*.

*Assuming PCs are rare, so on, and so forth...

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's metagaming, plain and simple. I see that as abusing the rules, but if you don't then that's fine by me.

I guess it's a matter of degree, of how far you have to dig or how far you have to go out of your way to squeeze some advantage from the rules. Something like focus-fire is just as meta-gamey as healing allies from 0 by preference. It's predicated on the same oddity of D&D: the total lack of any sort of wound penalty, the abstract nature of hps. Neither are 'realistic' nor even very plausible, but the latter got a new incentive with the addition of healing-from-zero instead of healing-from-negative. FWIW.

If a rule is that obvious and that easy to 'abuse' that's a symptom of a problem with the rule.

Nope, it was never my intent to deny the issue. I was simply stating that I don't think CdG is a good or reasonable solution to whack-a-mole*.

Fair enough. I'd see it more as a symptom of the problem than a solution.

*Assuming PCs are rare, so on, and so forth...

Frankly, I like that assumption, I just can't agree it's been that common through most of the game's history - because 1:100 or 1:1000 demographic just isn't that rare, even in a population consistent with the middle ages. You'd have to get near to the level of PC uniqueness - that the PCs might be the only people in their generation to have class levels, for instance - to really make that one (CdG) symptom of the problem (W-a-M) to go away.

 

[Lanefan]

I guess it's a matter of degree, of how far you have to dig or how far you have to go out of your way to squeeze some advantage from the rules. Something like focus-fire is just as meta-gamey as healing allies from 0 by preference. It's predicated on the same oddity of D&D: the total lack of any sort of wound penalty, the abstract nature of hps. Neither are 'realistic' nor even very plausible, but the latter got a new incentive with the addition of healing-from-zero instead of healing-from-negative. FWIW.

If a rule is that obvious and that easy to 'abuse' that's a symptom of a problem with the rule.

The lack of wound penalties is, I think, the root issue both here and some other places where the reality simulator gets left just a little too far behind.

So, what's a reasonably simple to track, elegant, penalizing-without-being-debilitating wound system going to look like?

Frankly, I like that assumption, I just can't agree it's been that common through most of the game's history - because 1:100 or 1:1000 demographic just isn't that rare, even in a population consistent with the middle ages. You'd have to get near to the level of PC uniqueness - that the PCs might be the only people in their generation to have class levels, for instance - to really make that one (CdG) symptom of the problem (W-a-M) to go away.

Of course, if your party are the only levelled people in your generation and half of you die bravely (or foolishly) fighting a Giant you really should have run away from at first sight, where are the replacement characters going to come from?

Lan-"'that's the problem with being the last of something, Jack - sooner or later there's none left at all' - Captain Barbosa"-efan

 

[Tony Vargas]

The lack of wound penalties is, I think, the root issue both here and some other places where the reality simulator gets left just a little too far behind.

So, what's a reasonably simple to track, elegant, penalizing-without-being-debilitating wound system going to look like?

I've never seen one.

For all the kvetching about oddities or hand-wringing over meta-gaming or over-thinking implications of D&D's very abstract modeling of plot armor & other genre conventions via hps, it's a reasonably good system.

Of course, if your party are the only levelled people in your generation and half of you die bravely (or foolishly) fighting a Giant you really should have run away from at first sight, where are the replacement characters going to come from?

Class levels (there could be NPCs of a given level, for instance, or 3.x-style NPC classes), but, I'm sure Fate could tag some farm-boy or princess or something to join you, if you start everyone at 1st, or if you bring in replacements at level, a character who, up 'til then would have been stated as an NPC suddenly grows full-PC class/level abilities. ;P

In that paradigm, being a PC is more about their status as PC (protagonist, you could say).

 

[Psikerlord#]

I think the simplest option to avoid whack-a-mole would be -ve Con HP and you're dead (eg 14 Con means -14 HP = death). That makes any PC on single digit HP worried about the next attack - a big spell, or a crit, and their PC might die. So, because of this very dangerous risk, PCs will instead cast their healing earlier to avoid getting low digit HP.

 

[shoak1]

I think the simplest option to avoid whack-a-mole would be -ve Con HP and you're dead (eg 14 Con means -14 HP = death). That makes any PC on single digit HP worried about the next attack - a big spell, or a crit, and their PC might die. So, because of this very dangerous risk, PCs will instead cast their healing earlier to avoid getting low digit HP.

We like using -max hp=death. That way it scales with level and also makes it less easy to kill unconscious PCs. We also do death saving throws, 3 fail=die, 3 succeed=stable, and 20=go to 1 hp. Healing unconscious PCs begins at their current negative hp, not at 0. The sum of all those rules means PCs don't die that often as long as care is taken by the remaining party to stabilize their comrade within 2-5 rounds, and assuming they don't let baddies just unload on their buddy. But it takes care of the whack a mole issue, which we agree would otherwise be a big problem/exploit/badly designed rule.

 

[Psikerlord#]

We like using -max hp=death. That way it scales with level and also makes it less easy to kill unconscious PCs. We also do death saving throws, 3 fail=die, 3 succeed=stable, and 20=go to 1 hp. Healing unconscious PCs begins at their current negative hp, not at 0. The sum of all those rules means PCs don't die that often as long as care is taken by the remaining party to stabilize their comrade within 2-5 rounds, and assuming they don't let baddies just unload on their buddy. But it takes care of the whack a mole issue, which we agree would otherwise be a big problem/exploit/badly designed rule.

Yeah I can see how that also works, not a bad idea at all. Just keep tracking -ve HP, which means you will often need substantial healing to get them back above zero and back in the fight. Nice one.

 

[Kalshane]

I think the simplest option to avoid whack-a-mole would be -ve Con HP and you're dead (eg 14 Con means -14 HP = death). That makes any PC on single digit HP worried about the next attack - a big spell, or a crit, and their PC might die. So, because of this very dangerous risk, PCs will instead cast their healing earlier to avoid getting low digit HP.

I'd suggest a compromise, where negative HPs don't exist as such, but any blow that would take you into negatives past your Con score would automatically kill you. So once you're actually dying, you don't track HPs and just do death saves, as per the normal rules, but any damage equal or greater than your Con score kills you instantly (anything less gives you failed death saves as normal.) And whack-a-mole healing to get you back on your feet at single digits makes it really likely for you to die if you get hit once you're standing.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

I think the simplest option to avoid whack-a-mole would be -ve Con HP and you're dead (eg 14 Con means -14 HP = death). That makes any PC on single digit HP worried about the next attack - a big spell, or a crit, and their PC might die. So, because of this very dangerous risk, PCs will instead cast their healing earlier to avoid getting low digit HP.

One thing you might want to try first is having creatures go out of their way to actualy kill players.
remember atacks made from 5 feet away count as a crit, meaning 2 failed saving trows.

If you do this there is a big chance character die before the healer has a chance to make them pop up again