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

[Lanefan]

It seems from this thread one of the most straightforward alternatives is to readd negative hp to the game.

However, allowing high-level heroes to reach negative hit points in three digits feels absurd

Agreed.

So what do you say about setting the minimum hp to -20 instead of 0?

Or, for some old-school feel, -10.

For some variability, perhaps if you're between -1 and -9 you get some sort of roll to remain conscious and functioning (though probably with disadvantage on various things and at half move speed); between -10 and -19* you're automatically unconscious but still alive, and at -20* you either die outright or start making death saves depending on preference. Anyone below 0 and unconscious bleeds out 1 h.p./round, someone below 0 but still conscious can make a roll to stabilize himself at current h.p. if other healing resources (e.g. a potion) aren't available.

* - this number's open to amendment; some might want it set at -15, others -25, whatever floats yer boat.

For dramatic purposes, one could build in that someone between -10 and -19 can be conscious but not do anything but speak (no movement etc.) and can't cast spells; this would allow for "dying word" scenarios and the like.

Lanefan

 

[Rhenny]

Thank you for all your suggestions.

I am personally focussed on the cost of healing, rather than slapping the downed hero with penalties.

Keeping your allies standing should be a more rational option than letting them fall. Of course, with throttled in-combat healing, an even better option is to quickly kill the opposition...!

Reaching 0 hp should NOT be a preferred way to soak large amounts of damage.

---

It seems from this thread one of the most straightforward alternatives is to readd negative hp to the game.

However, allowing high-level heroes to reach negative hit points in three digits feels absurd, since my main aim was to negate the whack-a-mole trivial heals.

So what do you say about setting the minimum hp to -20 instead of 0?

That way, you can still heal a fallen ally. You just can't use a 1d4 Healing Word.

Being downed still absorb much damage. But not the final points.

You should try it and see.

For me, it adds too much bookkeeping and there will be many more opportunities for the baddies to kill PCs if they can't be brought up quick enough. That's not bad in itself, but it does add a bit more doom and gloom to falling unconscious.

I think I like the exhaustion level option myself since it only applies disadvantage to ability checks at level 1, and then 1/2 speed at level 2. This might be something that players could live with and it makes it seem like the wound is still not healed completely, requiring long rest to remove the exhaustion.

Here's another option that may be totally out there, but what the heck. Instead of penalizing the player who falls, make it harder for the player who used magic to bring an unconscious PC back to consciousness. Rationale: it requires more effort and concentration than healing someone who is not unconscious.

Good luck, whatever you decide.

 

[Hussar]

The Healer feat can restore you to 1 HP as often as you have healing kit supplies. That is at-will to a first approximation, given how cheap kits are.

But, that takes an action and you must be adjacent to the target to use it. So, now you have a 1 HP PC on the ground next to the healing PC and bad guys still operational. Why wouldn't someone just crush the 1 HP PC again and then drop the healer? Everyone's got healing kit? Everyone always makes their checks? At some point, you'll run out of actions. If you have more 0 HP PC's than healing kit PC's, the rules change.

And giving up actions to grant 1 HP to a PC is a pretty difficult tactical decision.
[MENTION=25643]ca[/MENTION]ppZapp - "experienced adventures drop seldom. " is not a problem at my table. Dropping a PC below zero HP is pretty easy.

Perhaps if you changed up the monster tactics slightly, target the "squishier" PC's a little more often for example, you'd see PC's being dropped to zero HP more often and you'd see why being more punitive about dropping to zero is maybe not needed as much.

 

[Psikerlord#]

The CRPG Dragon Age Origins used an Injuries system - any time a character dropped in combat, they'd incur a random injury that could not be removed through normal healing magic.

Injuries were specific conditions such as Concussion or broken limbs, each of which imposed a specific penalty. In D&D terms, these could be modelled through Disadvantage to certain checks or saves, for instance.

Once injured, a character could not naturally remove an Injury except through a long rest. It might be reasonable to allow magical healing to remove one Injury per short rest.

We use the injury table in DMG (Well, a modified/expanded one, including other setbacks as opposed to injuries - damaged weapon, armour, items, etc)

 

[pukunui]

Don't you think that's rather biased against the front-line types, who are most likely to go down?

Perhaps. Doesn't really bother me, though. That's the risk you take getting up in the enemy's face like that. Besides, smart enemies will probably target the squishy casters first anyway (that's what I always do when I play CRPGs like Dragon Age), so they'll get their chance to experience injuries too.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I dislike the notion monsters generally should continue attacking fallen foes. Dropping an adventurer should be enough, given that significant healing magic is an exception, not the rule.

Even without healing magic, an enemy at zero HP may take up to five rounds to stabilize, die, or revive to full activity with 1 HP. Chances of revival were about 18% when I did the math. That's frequent enough to justify double-tapping fallen foes to make sure they stay down--not to mention the possibility of playing possum!

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Reminds me of a signature I've seen, something along the lines of "the first sign of a poor combat rule is when somebody suggests you take a ready action to counteract it."

In short, Saelorn: no, I don't want the monsters to change their behaviour to fix a poor rule.

I want people to generally leave downed foes alone (until they have won the fight, then they may eat them etc). Mostly to maintain a light and friendly atmosphere, but also to make the few enemies that focus on killing the fallen really stand out as wicked and sadistic.

I think we're in agreement, then. The default healing rules are poor, and we know this because the only way to work around them is for the entire opposed side to ready their actions.

By changing the default healing behavior - such as in my example, where a healed creature remains an unconscious non-combatant - there is no longer any incentive for the other side to ready actions to kill the character before it can be healed. It would take an especially vicious foe to finish someone off in the middle of the fight, since doing so would be a tactical mistake.

 

[pukunui]

I think in-combat healing is one of those gamist things that you just have to accept for the sake of the game. It's no fun being the player whose character has gone down at the beginning of the fight, meaning you just have to sit there and watch everyone else play. In-combat healing, as much as it might not "make sense" or whatever, means that that player gets to jump back into the action and continue having fun like everyone else.

In the past, I've played games where reviving a fallen character is pretty hard. I remember one time when I was DMing a SWSE game, for instance, when a PC went down and, knowing that his character was going to be out for the rest of the fight, which occurred close to the end of the session, the player decided to just go home early rather than hang around and watch everyone else continue to play.

So I'm willing to accept this kind of thing for the sake of keeping every engaged. That's why I like my lingering injuries on 0 hp rule. It doesn't change the way in-combat healing works, but it also doesn't make it so dropping and being revived is without *any* consequence.

 

[CapnZapp]

You should try it and see.

For me, it adds too much bookkeeping and there will be many more opportunities for the baddies to kill PCs if they can't be brought up quick enough. That's not bad in itself, but it does add a bit more doom and gloom to falling unconscious.

I think I like the exhaustion level option myself since it only applies disadvantage to ability checks at level 1, and then 1/2 speed at level 2. This might be something that players could live with and it makes it seem like the wound is still not healed completely, requiring long rest to remove the exhaustion.

Here's another option that may be totally out there, but what the heck. Instead of penalizing the player who falls, make it harder for the player who used magic to bring an unconscious PC back to consciousness. Rationale: it requires more effort and concentration than healing someone who is not unconscious.

Good luck, whatever you decide.

Thanks.

Just saying that introducing negative hp does just that - instead of penalizing the fallen player (with hard to remove exhaustion levels) negative hp makes it harder to bring him back (because you need to heal more hit points; preferably more than what a lowly level 1 potion can provide and definitely more than a drive-by Healing Word provides).

Adding a wee bit more doom and gloom to falling unconcious is exactly what this thread is about. Cheers!

 

[CapnZapp]

Or, for some old-school feel, -10.

For some variability

First: tell me more about this old-school feel. (If I can say I'm readding some rule from back in the AD&D days, so much the better. Yes, my players are that old*)

*) I'm that old too, but I didn't get to play much pre-3E D&D.

Then, regarding variability.

I am not planning to add different stages, since "complicated" does not sell this houserule.

But I was thinking about "you can reach your negative CON"... but in the end, I can't justify why being strong and robust should mean you fall unconscious harder than the frail and spindly ones.

That's why I went with -20, since that would include nearly everybody in this edition (with the hard cap set to that exact amount).

But I can go with -10 too, if you can find "nostalgic support" for that one