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

[FormerlyHemlock]

Is that right? I thought healing kit usage meant you stayed at 0 and therefore unconscious but were stabilised.

Yes, but the Healer feat changes that.

A Thief with the Healer feat therefore basically has bonus action heals for free.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

Well, if you rule that going below negative CON just flat out kills the character then it makes more sense. The frail character can't go that deeply unconscious because he's DEAD instead.

This kind of stuff was never a problem in B/X. Everyone DIES at 0 HP. End. Of. Story. If you drop to 0 in a fight, then you need a raise dead. No whack a mole, no needing to worry about attacking a downed foe. Oh, and if someone is wounded it gets taken care of PRONTO if resources are available.

It really does solve all these problems.

 

[aramis erak]

Is that right? I thought healing kit usage meant you stayed at 0 and therefore unconscious but were stabilised.

My suggestion to address the whack a mole feeling is that until the end of your first round after being unconscious all rolls are at disadvantage.

Healing kit, no feat: 1 charge=stabilized at 0.
Healing kit, with healer feat: restores to 1 HP (at will) –OR– heals 1d6+4+target level HP (once per short)

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I didn't read the whole thread, but yeah, we started to see the whack-a-hero phenomenon come up. Initially I went with a "below 0 = one level of Exhaustion". I still use it, actually....most of the time. But I find myself forgetting sometimes...and it doesn't seem to matter. So...I think I need to find something else, or just ignore it and chalk it up to one of the foibles of the game.

If I did/do decide to do something about it, I'm thinking of maybe using a "Duration" for healing. In my own "Fantasy Elements" rpg system (based heavily on Darkurthe Legends rpg), there are healing spells, but they have a duration. You are 'healed' for the duration. At the end of the duration, any Life Points ("HP") that' haven't healed naturally by that time, come back. This means that after a good foray into a dungeon, everyone is beat to . They have likely used Healing Magic to not die...adventuring is dangerous! Each "wound" amount they have taken in recorded (e.g., "-2, -2, -3, -5"). All wounds heal at the same rate; that is, each is treated 'individually'. So, lets say after the first day the character heals 2 points via natural healing, good medical care, herbalism, etc (non-magic). The two -2 point wounds are gone. The -3 and -5 are reduced to -1 and -3. The next day, assuming same healing rate, the -1 is gone, and the -3 is now -1. The next day the character heals up that last -1. So, after three days he will be healed. So...lets say that the magic healing potion he drank in the dungeon has a duration of 1 day. At the end of the first day, his two -2 pointers were gone, leaving him with a -1 and -3. If his total Life Points at full health is, say, 15, then he is at 11 (still having 4 points of damage). He's hurting, and hit shows! During the duration, he looked more or less 'fine'; maybe some bruising, swelling, stiffness, etc...but no grievous wounds showing. After the duration, however, he wakes up with a large claw mark across his face. Natural healing of this will result in scars. However, casting another 1-day healing spell on him will 'remove' these claw marks, maybe they'll show up as scratches depending on how much LP were healed versus damage done.

I know it sounds a bit complicated, but for my game, with relatively low'ish "Hit Points" (Life Points), it isn't much book keeping. In 5e, however, where a 11th level barbarian can have 150 hp or more... it could get a bit unwieldy. So, if I do, I may have to find a way to "bunch up" wounds into things like "Light", "Medium", "Heavy" and "Deadly" or some such.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[pukunui]

I feel quickly bouncing back is a cheesy notion, or more specifically: how whack-a-mole strategy is pure cheese.

So why bother with it then? I reckon you're seeing moles in needing of whacking where there aren't any. Such a notion never even crossed my mind in all my years of playing D&D before seeing the title of this thread.

Furthermore, I don't like the vindictive turn the game takes if you take the rules to their logical conclusion

Then don't follow the rules to their logical conclusion. Just ignore that bit and keep playing.

Nothing about lingering injuries make you want to stop healing the fallen.

Sure it does! You want to stop your friend from dropping so they don't suffer a nasty consequence that they may not be able to get rid of very easily.

Why would a d4 healing word not work when a 1 hp Lay on Hand does? Why would a Healing Potion work even when you roll a one, when a healing word won't work even for a Life Cleric using a level nine slot restoring dozens and dozens of hit points? (And so on, I'm being rhetoric)

My impression was that you had a problem with the fact that healing word only costs a bonus action. Lay on Hands (and cure wounds - and all the other healing spells) cost an action. There's more of a resource cost.

But good luck with your campaign and your lingering wounds!

OK. I know when I'm not wanted. I'll stop bothering you with my crazy notions. Good luck with your negative hit points!

 

[Lanefan]

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

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

 

[KarinsDad]

But dropping seldom is precisely the reason dropping should be special, and not trivially fixed by a Healing Word.

I would think that the easy solution then would be to get rid of Healing Word (since it is rarely used at other times for anything else). It would be bad enough to penalize any of your players who enjoy being the one to rescue a downed ally by removing the Healing Word spell so that they can no longer do that, but going beyond that into some of the suggestions here in this thread seems excessively punitive to your players. I know of players who like "saving the day by keep the team up". But, your table, your rules. Whatever floats your boat. I was merely suggesting that for the amount of frequency, any solution to "fix this" seems like killing an ant with a sledgehammer. Better to just ignore the ant. Good luck with whatever you decide.

 

[S'mon]

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.

Why is it absurd? Are positive hp in triple digits absurd too?

 

[Lanefan]

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] - you seem to have put yourself up against a two-headed problem: 1. You don't want whack-a-mole combats. 2. You don't want players sitting around doing nothing because their character is lying on the ground unconscious.

Under current parameters these issues are for the most part mutually unresolveable, i.e. solving one probably exacerbates the other.

So, look at changing the parameters. Instead of players only having one character each, let 'em run two. Or encourage the hiring of henches and adventuring associates. Or chuck some NPC adventurers into the party. All of these give players with downed characters something to do and a reason to stay engaged: their other character is still going, or they take over their hench for a while, or they roll for an NPC party member.

And if your players reject all these options then tell 'em loud and clear it's on them when one (or more) has nothing to do for an hour or so, and proceed with plan A.

Lan-"larger parties also give more character options for players, as they can go beyond just filling the necessary core roles and experiment with other classes/races/ideas/etc."-efan

 

[S'mon]

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] - you seem to have put yourself up against a two-headed problem: 1. You don't want whack-a-mole combats. 2. You don't want players sitting around doing nothing because their character is lying on the ground unconscious.

Under current parameters these issues are for the most part mutually unresolveable, i.e. solving one probably exacerbates the other.

I solved it ok IMC - IMC there are negative hp, but in practice it's VERY RARE for a PC to go down, and when it does happen it's a serious issue. I really feel I get the best possible result - PCs are rarely taken out, and death is rare, but combat is taken seriously.