Prevent dropping to 0 yo-yo. Exhaustion?

[Kryx]

Problem: Player drops to 0, but can be healed to be back up and fighting with little consequences (besides falling prone). The system by default almost encourages healers to wait until the target goes down before healing, because the overkill damage is ignored. Example: if a 20 hp character takes 15 damage, you then need 15 points of healing to top him back off. However, if a character at 1 hp takes 15 damage, you can heal him for a single point and get him back and fully operation again. The concern of dying goes away after level 3.

Solution 1: Add a level of exhaustion if the player falls to 0.
Exhaustion thread 1 (http://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/2qtyl3/drop_to_0_hp_or_below_gain_one_level_of_exhaustion/), Exhaustion thread 2 (http://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/2gm1u4/optional_rule_level_of_exhaustion_after_being/)
Exhaustion levels are serious business. One isn't that bad, but after a few levels the character is seriously debilitated and at 6 the character dies. This would cause players to "respect" hitting 0 hp a little more.

Solution 2: Track negative HP alongside the normal death rules.
Negative hp thread (http://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/2qush5/tracking_negative_hp_yay_or_nay/)
This would require that you heal the damaged amount to get back to fighting. The consequences are more immediate than the exhaustion system.

Solution 3: Lasting Injuries.
We looked into this system. It doesn't really prevent the issue above without being too much of a nuisance imo.

Solution 4: Be a mean DM and have decently intelligent enemies kill downed opponents if any healing happens.
This should happen in some cases, but I would really rather not be super aggressive with this. Making it an arms races is the least desired approach for DM and players.



I'm sure most don't mind the current system and there are many who will say "don't touch it!!!", but I've also seen a growing number of others who do not like the yo-yo system.

So please post if you think this is a problem and if you've chosen to implement any of the above systems, or if you think there is a better one.

[Rilak]

If you want dropping to 0 to be a lot more dangerous, don't reset death saves after getting above 0 hp (only on short/long rest).

[Kane0]

I really like the exhaustion solution, i think i might use that!

[Kryx]

If you want dropping to 0 to be a lot more dangerous

I don't want dropping to 0 to be more dangerous. I want to stop the yo-yo effect outlined in the "Problem".

[Cazero]

The healer who put a PC back in the fight effectively lose a turn. The character who dropped to 0 should lose his turn as well, or there is no reason not to heal a downed PC.
This way, every time the 0HP yo-yo is used, the rezzed guy can be dropped again before taking action, making the trick innefective in most situations.

[Kryx]

The healer who put a PC back in the fight effectively lose a turn.

Nope, see Healing Word.


The character who dropped to 0 should lose his turn as well

This is harsher than most would probably want it, including myself. Incapacitated is probably a better choice if you decide to do this.
Imo you should be able to heal in combat, just not abuse the lack of negative HP.

[ad_hoc]

I like exhaustion with a save to avoid.

Exhaustion rules are awesome in this edition. Though I may make it easier to recover from exhaustion too.

I don't think the Frenzy Barbarian will be much of a problem. They will probably be the last to go down in any party anyway.

[Eslin]

Having death saves not reset makes sense to me.

[holygroundj]

Well, my question is then: What's the real problem? Is it versilimitude? or is that healing spells suck in this edition and if they were better, you'd avoid the yo-yo syndrom all together?

[AstralFire]

Well, my question is then: What's the real problem? Is it versilimitude? or is that healing spells suck in this edition and if they were better, you'd avoid the yo-yo syndrom all together?

I can't speak for 2E and better, but compared to 3E, healing spells are amazing, and they seem pretty on-par with 4E.

[holygroundj]

I can't speak for 2E and better, but compared to 3E, healing spells are amazing, and they seem pretty on-par with 4E.

Due to the nature of healing in general in 5e, healing word and cure wounds are considered a waste of resources. It's almost always better to use those resources (spell slots) to kill the enemy rather than heal a friendly. If healing word was 1d8 and cure wounds was 2d8, it would go a long way into making use of that precious resource for healing rather than damage. Or even 1d4/8 xspell slot+"caster level"+mod.

As it is, the healer feat and a healing kit plus healing potions are a monumentally better use of resources than the alternative.

This is coming from someone who plays a life cleric. Guiding bolt > cure wounds.

[RedMage125]

Death Saving Throws only resetting after a short rest is how 4e did it, too. It does, however, re-instate the significance of, and fear of, death.

So a character drops to 0, fails a death saving throw, gets healed back up. If he drops again, fails one more before healing, he's only got one left before he dies.

This creates the desire to not let people get below 0 hp, or stay there very long.

[Person_Man]

Question: Is combat fun for your players with the RAW death rules? If not, do you think that killing more often and/or punishing them with a status condition or penalty make the game more fun for them? Have you asked them that question?

[Kryx]

Question: Is combat fun for your players with the RAW death rules? If not, do you think that killing more often and/or punishing them with a status condition or penalty make the game more fun for them? Have you asked them that question?

I expected this kind of post.

I'm sure most don't mind the current system and there are many who will say "don't touch it!!!", but I've also seen a growing number of others who do not like the yo-yo system.

I understand that many don't want to change the system at all, and that's fine. In my opinion yo-yoing is cheesy and getting rid of a "bug" shouldn't be viewed as if the players are being nerfed. The current system is abusable and would likely end in an arms race of intelligent enemies killing more PCs. I do not want to be aggressive with that kind of playstyle.

[AstralFire]

Due to the nature of healing in general in 5e, healing word and cure wounds are considered a waste of resources. It's almost always better to use those resources (spell slots) to kill the enemy rather than heal a friendly. If healing word was 1d8 and cure wounds was 2d8, it would go a long way into making use of that precious resource for healing rather than damage. Or even 1d4/8 xspell slot+"caster level"+mod.

As it is, the healer feat and a healing kit plus healing potions are a monumentally better use of resources than the alternative.

This is coming from someone who plays a life cleric. Guiding bolt > cure wounds.

My experience thus far is that at lowest levels, when slots are the tightest is also when you need immediate healing the most, as it can mean the difference between a man up or down. At higher levels, there are spells more efficient for out-of-combat healing like the aura of life or vitality (forget which), and again you use the other, more immediate type of healing when you absolutely need someone up.

[Yagyujubei]

Death Saving Throws only resetting after a short rest is how 4e did it, too. It does, however, re-instate the significance of, and fear of, death.

So a character drops to 0, fails a death saving throw, gets healed back up. If he drops again, fails one more before healing, he's only got one left before he dies.

This creates the desire to not let people get below 0 hp, or stay there very long.

my group does this and negative HP combined. Needless to say we do our best to make sure nobody goes down, but the flip side is that if you are downed you can be healed better than just back up to 1. you get healed for the full amount of the heal.

[Kryx]

the flip side is that if you are downed you can be healed better than just back up to 1. you get healed for the full amount of the heal.

This is the normal.. Negative HP implies that you'd heal from that negative amount. Do you just keep track of negative in case they go over their normal hp?

[Myzz]

I don't think the yo yo is a bug... its an optimization metagame tactic your players are utilizing, because cure wounds sucks. Healing in general has the feel that its intended for out of combat AND only in emergencies in combat... But said emergency could more likely be avoided by using that spell slot and/or action to incapacitate the attacker of the person that needs healing or outright killing it. All of which yield better results, metagame numbers wise than casting that heal.

As the DM, you feel it is necessary to put some mechanic in play that encourages your players not to use this metagame tactic... and any of the suggestions offered are very viable. I would shy away from the negative HP thing, unless your going to also do away with death saves... imo its either one or the other. But since the healing sucks so much in combat negative HP is far more harsh... now requiring 2 useless spells to be cast (cure wounds) instead of just the one.

In previous editions you could have your healer stack up level 1 spell slots for cure spells, in this edition that doesnt work (except dipping warlock).

I would fix the healing aspect so that healing is actually functional... Implement a Healing Surge type action.
Whenever you receive healing that allows you to roll dice while conscious you may also expend a Hit Dice to recover HP.

The bold part gets rid of popping goodberrys like life savers =) but if you want that, then by all means remove the bold. While conscious makes your healers want to actual cast spells before they die because it makes the heal more effective, while not actually altering the spell.

You could also rephrase the last part to state: ... expend a number of Hit Dice up to the number of dice the heal lets you roll to recover HP. That way it scales if you want it to. This effectively doubles all your healing, IF the player receiving the heal wants or needs it to and uses a resource they must manage (Hit Dice) while encouraging the heal before they reach 0.

[Cazero]

This is coming from someone who plays a life cleric. Guiding bolt > cure wounds.

The yo-yo trick implies that when you cast cure wounds to put back into shape someone who just got downed, you don't lose an action. The now fully functionnal party member who just got back on his feet will take that action for you right now, and keep taking more action on subsequent turns if he is not downed again immediatly.
(Wich is why I suggested the downed member should lose a turn.)

It might still be a waste of spell slots, but it is viable in action economy.

[pibby]

I don't even think this problems needs to be solved with a homebrew. As a DM you just need more opponents to threaten the players. So what if the players get yo-yo'd back up, the mooks will just target the re-awoken threat and and potentially deal more than 1d4+3 to him. And if the BBEG is the only opponent that's let then Healing Word isn't that much different from Cure Wounds assuming that there is still one player keeping the BBEG preoccupied.

[Myzz]

I don't even think this problems needs to be solved with a homebrew. As a DM you just need more opponents to threaten the players. So what if the players get yo-yo'd back up, the mooks will just target the re-awoken threat and and potentially deal more than 1d4+3 to him. And if the BBEG is the only opponent that's let then Healing Word isn't that much different from Cure Wounds assuming that there is still one player keeping the BBEG preoccupied.

Or frequenly AoE areas when players fall to 0, everyone will know that extra death saves are coming to any player that does hit 0 (without necessarily targeting that player specifically) Makes tactical sense without being completely META (I dont want to switch from bad guy thats about to hit me to guy there on ground not threatening me in order to finish him off - BUT if I can do both...) Set the whole world on FIRE!

[Kryx]

I outlined that in Solution 4:


Solution 4: Be a mean DM and have decently intelligent enemies kill downed opponents if any healing happens.
This should happen in some cases, but I would really rather not be super aggressive with this. Making it an arms races is the least desired approach for DM and players.

Being aggressive with it just makes it an arms race and is bad for everyone.

[Person_Man]

I expected this kind of post.

I understand that many don't want to change the system at all, and that's fine. In my opinion yo-yoing is cheesy and getting rid of a "bug" shouldn't be viewed as if the players are being nerfed. The current system is abusable and would likely end in an arms race of intelligent enemies killing more PCs. I do not want to be aggressive with that kind of playstyle.

So I want to say that I agree with you from a theory-craft point of view and respect your ideas. But I haven't observed the problem you describe in actual games. I've seen TPK, I've seen players use healing rationally, and I've seen players actively avoid combat when they felt that it was too difficult. So making it easier to die would make my games worse.

Now obviously different players and DMs will have different games, and you could put into place a whole range of different homebrew fixes. There's nothing wrong with that. I certainly do it all the time. I'm just suggesting that whatever homebrew fixes you choose to put into place should be designed to make the game more fun for the players and have their buy-in, as opposed to fixing perceived injustices or simulationist failings.

[Kryx]

So I want to say that I agree with you from a theory-craft point of view and respect your ideas. But I haven't observed the problem you describe in actual games. I've seen TPK, I've seen players use healing rationally, and I've seen players actively avoid combat when they felt that it was too difficult. So making it easier to die would make my games worse.

Now obviously different players and DMs will have different games, and you could put into place a whole range of different homebrew fixes. There's nothing wrong with that. I certainly do it all the time. I'm just suggesting that whatever homebrew fixes you choose to put into place should be designed to make the game more fun for the players and have their buy-in, as opposed to fixing perceived injustices or simulationist failings.

I agree with this. I have discussed the issue with my players for a few weeks now. Some see it as an issue, others not as much. I'm leaving the decision about how to fix the "issue" mostly up to them.
With that said I'm starting to shy away from exhaustion: I don't want to force more long rests.


I want to consider not having death throws reset until a short rest, but it doesn't really seem to fix the issue directly, but definitely makes you more afraid to accumulate any failures.

[Yagyujubei]

This is the normal.. Negative HP implies that you'd heal from that negative amount. Do you just keep track of negative in case they go over their normal hp?

naw, the reason we keep track of negative is that sometimes a tiny heal wouldnt even stabalize a character you know? if I have 50hp, and someone takes me down to negative 38 hp. I'm in alot of trouble, and I need serious healing to get back into fighting shape, a healing word isn't gonna do it.

and for some reason I thought that getting healed while unconscious only stabilized you to 1 hp regardless of the heal amount in the default rules...could be wrong, my main game has such a patchwork rule set its hard to keep track.

[charlesk]

I instituted a house rule in my game that is indirectly related to this. I really hated as a DM all the inherent metagaming that always happened with the death throw mechanics.. character goes down and starts making death throws, telling everyone how many successes and failures they had so everyone knew exactly when they had to go get them back up. It wasn't malicious, really human nature, but totally unrealistic and made being down basically several free rounds.

So the rule became that rolls are made in private. And immediately being down became much more of a big deal.

[Easy_Lee]

Do you use index cards for turn order? I'd just place people at the bottom of the stack when they come back from being unconscious if your players try to abuse it.

[Tvtyrant]

Just rule they are unconcious until the end of combat. Now your party will have actual reasons to avoid being knocked out of the fight, and it doesn't require paying it forward like lingering wounds or exhaustion. I found my players began to actually deliberate before entering combat and became much more tactical when dropping started having consequences.

[Vogonjeltz]

I'm sure most don't mind the current system and there are many who will say "don't touch it!!!", but I've also seen a growing number of others who do not like the yo-yo system.

So please post if you think this is a problem and if you've chosen to implement any of the above systems, or if you think there is a better one.

This doesn't track. How are they fighting CR appropriate enemies, reaching the point that they get knocked out, but they're 'never' at risk for instant death?

They never fight enemies that outnumber them or have multiple attacks? (3 hits at 0 = instant death). Massive damage = instant death. Getting dropped right before their iniative count, and suffering two failures + failing their death save = basically instant death.

I submit Solutions 5 and 6:
Give them a fight that's actually dangerous (enemies who hit hard, or have multiple attacks, or multiple enemies).
OR
Hit the healer. If the healer goes down, who's going to get them up?

Using the system that already exists is much easier on you the DM than trying to figure out some gamechanging homebrew.

[Kryx]

This doesn't track. How are they fighting CR appropriate enemies, reaching the point that they get knocked out, but they're 'never' at risk for instant death?

They never fight enemies that outnumber them or have multiple attacks? (3 hits at 0 = instant death). Massive damage = instant death. Getting dropped right before their iniative count, and suffering two failures + failing their death save = basically instant death.

I submit Solutions 5 and 6:
Give them a fight that's actually dangerous (enemies who hit hard, or have multiple attacks, or multiple enemies).
OR
Hit the healer. If the healer goes down, who's going to get them up?

Using the system that already exists is much easier on you the DM than trying to figure out some gamechanging homebrew.

While I enjoy the whole "you suck as a DM" condescension as much as the next guy it really isn't appropriate.


Massive damage - this is a variant rule, not core. Nor is it instant death.
Hitting a healer is harder than it sounds when a healer is a Paladin. Tactical battles w/ 1 dragon leaves plenty of opportunity for yo-yoing.
Aggressively Focusing downed PCs is something I specifically said I'd rather avoid.
They've fought many dangerous things. Yo-yoing is still viable via things like healing word.


Please take your condescension elsewhere. It isn't wanted in this thread.

[jkat718]

I agree that Vogonjeltz could've been a bit nicer, what he said was true. Also...


Massive damage - this is a variant rule, not core. Nor is it instant death.
They've fought many dangerous things. Yo-yoing is still viable via things like healing word.


A: Just...what? How is massive damage a variant rule? There are variants based on it, but the mechanic itself is right there in the book:

Instant Death: Massive damage can kill you instantly. When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum.

B: If there are enough monsters for them to be fighting a level-appropriate encounter, then there should be at least one monster in there who can slip in between the front-line tank (usually one of the first PCs in the initiative order) and the healer (usually lower in the order) to get a few hits.

[Kryx]

A: Just...what? How is massive damage a variant rule? There are variants based on it, but the mechanic itself is right there in the book:

Ah, that massive damage, not the variant. (I was rather tired when typing that up, sry)
That massive damage means next to nothing after level 2. It's nearly impossible for it to kill PCs except against things like dragon's breath weapons. And even then its no where near expected. We've fought 2 dragons and neither was able to kill a PC w/ massive damage due to the luck of the rolls. Even when the PC was very low before the breath. Effectively 31 hp overkill was turned into 1 death save.


B: If there are enough monsters for them to be fighting a level-appropriate encounter, then there should be at least one monster in there who can slip in between the front-line tank (usually one of the first PCs in the initiative order) and the healer (usually lower in the order) to get a few hits.

As an example: I had 5 level 5 Pcs fight a Young Green Dragon with 3 Wyrmlings. This is technically an overwhelming fight. Dragons aren't the type to recklessly charge in. He fought with tactics and his lair actions. Him charging in or his wrymlings charging in would've been very bad for them. Instead he played intelligently and breath weaponed and tried to wait for it to recharge. He got it off the first 3 rounds, but then failed to recharge for the next 3-4. During those rounds he isolated one PC in the room and fought with him - the others weren't able to get in, but they could easily heal for 1 hp which causes the yo-yo problem.

What you're suggesting is that I have every encounter specifically designed to counter this meta. That's very difficult to do, and silly.

[jkat718]

What you're suggesting is that I have every encounter specifically designed to counter this meta. That's very difficult to do, and silly.

What I'm suggesting is that you don't ignore low-level mobs. I think many DMs do that, because of the old 3.x rules requiring you to keep all monsters close to the PCs level, CR-wise. In 5e, monsters no longer become irrelevant, they just require larger numbers. I'm sure the dragon + wyrmlings encounter was "overwhelming" as far as XP budgets are concerned (unless you forgot to account for the fact that you decrease the XP modifier for larger parties, which is another common mistake), but as you say, it wasn't, due to the tactics used. Rather than "metagaming" your encounters, find a monster that is realistic for the PCs to fight that is very weak. In order to accommodate your larger XP budget, you'll need to include more of them, thereby giving them more slots in the initiative (assuming you're doing individual initiative, rather than group initiative, which sometimes screws up action economy), and therefore more chances to kill downed PCs. Also, if your monsters are intelligent, they'll target downed creatures as soon as they realize that they are easily raised, and therefore still pose a threat. Another good tactic is AOE attacks, which can damage downed targets, even when aimed at still-standing creatures.

[Kryx]

What I'm suggesting is that you don't ignore low-level mobs. I think many DMs do that, because of the old 3.x rules requiring you to keep all monsters close to the PCs level, CR-wise. In 5e, monsters no longer become irrelevant, they just require larger numbers. I'm sure the dragon + wyrmlings encounter was "overwhelming" as far as XP budgets are concerned (unless you forgot to account for the fact that you decrease the XP modifier for larger parties, which is another common mistake), but as you say, it wasn't, due to the tactics used. Rather than "metagaming" your encounters, find a monster that is realistic for the PCs to fight that is very weak. In order to accommodate your larger XP budget, you'll need to include more of them, thereby giving them more slots in the initiative (assuming you're doing individual initiative, rather than group initiative, which sometimes screws up action economy), and therefore more chances to kill downed PCs. Also, if your monsters are intelligent, they'll target downed creatures as soon as they realize that they are easily raised, and therefore still pose a threat. Another good tactic is AOE attacks, which can damage downed targets, even when aimed at still-standing creatures.

I use the encounter calculator here: http://dhmholley.co.uk/encounter-calculator-5th/

I do send multiple enemies, I do have separate initative. None of these things change the core mechanics of the yo-yo.
Again, what you're suggesting is I purposefully be more aggressive in trying to kill downed PCs - I don't want to do that. I simply want to stop the yo-yo.

[Myzz]

I use the encounter calculator here: http://dhmholley.co.uk/encounter-calculator-5th/

I do send multiple enemies, I do have separate initative. None of these things change the core mechanics of the yo-yo.
Again, what you're suggesting is I purposefully be more aggressive in trying to kill downed PCs - I don't want to do that. I simply want to stop the yo-yo.

AoE like Dragon Breath is a great transitional dmg tool, Open with it to get everyone low. Pick target that was most affected by it, single target them. When they go down AoE that target and everyone else, pick the weakest link. To do otherwise is to devalue the Dragon's (or any monsters) inherent Int. When the Dragon is <half life flee. Come back at them when they take their short rest and get surprise...

The other option is to create some way for the PC's to want to heal before they actual hit 0. Here you have 4 options:
1. Make heal spells more effective when target is above 0 HP (Heal Surge I posted before is best for this imo)
2. Make heal spells less effective when target is at 0 HP
3. Reward players that heal themselves or others above 0 HP
4. Apply some penalty to hitting 0 HP

[DireSickFish]

I like solution 1, it may be a bit to harsh on the Frenzy barbarain who doesn't have a good way to remove exhaustion already. It would limit the number of times a PC could be brought up from 0 to 1 to 6 times which is nice. There is also a list already made for exhaustion effects and doesn't run into the problem of having to make your own punishments that injuries have.

PC's resting to much, or feeling they need to rest, is already a problem I have when I DM so I agree with you that that is a big issue. Not sure how to deal with that, and it may require its own thread.

Keeping failed death saves would not effect the yo-yo effect overmuch as you can get a PC back up before his next turn easily. This avoids the save entirely and keeps there from being a downside to just waiting till your out to heal.

One possible solution is to implement a penalty for being low on health. Either a 50%, 25% 10% max HP with various penalties, or a flat amount like under 10hp or 2hp*PClvl. So that sitting at low health amounts is undesirable. Then yo-yo ing gets them "back int he fight" but nowhere near full strength. Balance would be affected across the board so it may not be desirable for that reason. But it would add a cool effect to the game and mean keeping everyone healthy a priority.

[Kryx]

With the feedback from this thread I've refined my opinion a bit. Exhaustion seems too heavy handed and would force more long rests. Negative HP isn't really viable with the way healing spells are done in 5e. Being overly aggressive with killing tactics should be avoided.

Therefore I think the best solution should only target the real problem: 1 hit point heals to bring people back from unconsciousness. Lay on Hands and Goodberry being the primary offenders. I propose the following:

Paladin's Lay on Hands must use at least 5 points to heal someone from unconscious while in combat.
A Goodberry, by RAW, cannot be fed to unconscious people. I think the way to curtail the abuse is to have it take 2 actions to force feed an unconscious person.

Healing word is fine as it takes a slot and a bonus action. Cure wounds is fine, mass cures are fine.
Hopefully this will limit them without nerfing too much. Goodberry is meant for out of combat healing anyways. LoH is a bit touchier, I think it's value is more in line with intended. I'm sure my player will argue for a buff to LoH, but with Cure Wounds healing for 4.5+wis (~7) I'm not convinced it needs it.

This would prevent major revamps to the death system or other cumbersome mechanics.

[DireSickFish]

Sounds reasonable. Let us know it works in practice.

[RedMage125]

I instituted a house rule in my game that is indirectly related to this. I really hated as a DM all the inherent metagaming that always happened with the death throw mechanics.. character goes down and starts making death throws, telling everyone how many successes and failures they had so everyone knew exactly when they had to go get them back up. It wasn't malicious, really human nature, but totally unrealistic and made being down basically several free rounds.

So the rule became that rolls are made in private. And immediately being down became much more of a big deal.

I like it, but remember that even that kind of metagaming can blow up in their faces. You roll a 1 on a death saving throw, that's 2 failures, right there. Enemy drops an aoe on the party that catches the dying characters? Additional failure.

I try to limit metagame subjects like hp in combat. Divulging exact hp totals is frowned upon, but saying "I'm okay" "I'm bloodied", or "I'm really messed up" are all okay. Now, I do have some plyers at my table who have not been playing Tabletop RPS for very long (one for a year, one for a few months), and my current party is level 3, so I'm pretty lax on that rule right now, but they're already getting better at it.

I should note that outside of combat, I don't care what kind of hit point discussion they have regarding healing.

[holygroundj]

I appreciate the solutions presented here as well. My favorite would be that the DM rolls death saves, and does not give the results. Being down for combat is just not fun to begin with. adding the tension of not knowing the results removes some of the metagameyness of it.

I still don't like how goodberry is a better heal than both cure wounds and healing word, but I would buff those spells before nerfing goodberry. Not that you have nerfed it.

[Easy_Lee]

I still don't like how goodberry is a better heal than both cure wounds and healing word, but I would buff those spells before nerfing goodberry. Not that you have nerfed it.

It basically comes from the old mindset that healing in combat is bad. Usually it's better to just kill the foes and heal later. Goodberry lets you save the healing for exactly when you need it and solves your food and drink needs for the day as well.

[Tenmujiin]

I find that when I play my cleric, healing spells just aren't worth using until someone is downed. Unless my healing word is getting the paladin or warlock back in action and beating face I'm usually better off using shatter or hold person to prevent damage from occurring in the first place.

Basically, the problem IMO is that combat healing is underwhelming and it requires 'Yo-Yoing' to actually be a viable tactic. If my DM were to implement any of the 'fixes' I've seen in this thread I would just stop casting ANY healing in combat, except possibly to stabilize characters, though admittedly part of that is due to the personality of the cleric in question.

[Easy_Lee]

I find that when I play my cleric, healing spells just aren't worth using until someone is downed. Unless my healing word is getting the paladin or warlock back in action and beating face I'm usually better off using shatter or hold person to prevent damage from occurring in the first place.

Basically, the problem IMO is that combat healing is underwhelming and it requires 'Yo-Yoing' to actually be a viable tactic. If my DM were to implement any of the 'fixes' I've seen in this thread I would just stop casting ANY healing in combat, except possibly to stabilize characters, though admittedly part of that is due to the personality of the cleric in question.

I agree. Healing in D&D in general has too many factors stacked against it.

Combat is fast-paced, meaning a single attack can often one-shot a squishier target.
Means of preventing damage, such as web and sanctuary, prevent more damage than an equivalent healing spell can restore.
Means of out-of-combat healing, such as rests and regenerative effects, are often easy to come by.
Direct damage effects often deal more damage than an equivalent spell can heal.
Killing something faster means it doesn't get the chance to do as much damage.

All together, I really don't think healing needs any nerfs. I'm more tempted to buff healing, such as by adding regenerative effects, than to effectively nerf it by limiting its ability to bring allies back from incapacitation.

[Kryx]

If my DM were to implement any of the 'fixes' I've seen in this thread I would just stop casting ANY healing in combat, except possibly to stabilize characters, though admittedly part of that is due to the personality of the cleric in question.

Which is why I chose not to do the ones that affect normal heals - only the 1 hp cheese stuff.

[RedMage125]

The whole thing is as simple as saying that death saving throw failures "reset" only on a short or long rest.

Party Fighter drops and gets 3 failures before getting healed? Party healer better stick close, if he drops again, he'll die after one more failure.

[Vowtz]

The whole thing is as simple as saying that death saving throw failures "reset" only on a short or long rest.


Really nice! Reseting on long rest seems to be harsh, but on short seems perfect. I'll use the sort rest version!

[MarkTriumphant]

Party Fighter drops and gets 3 failures before getting healed? Party healer better stick close, if he drops again, he'll die after one more failure.

I assume you meant two failures, as three is where death occurs.

[Kryx]

The whole thing is as simple as saying that death saving throw failures "reset" only on a short or long rest.

Maintaining saves does not actually solve yo-yoing at all. Yo-yoing can, and usually does, happen before the person makes a save.

It's not a bad idea, just not really a "fix".

[Rilak]

Maintaining saves does not actually solve yo-yoing at all. Yo-yoing can, and usually does, happen before the person makes a save.

It's not a bad idea, just not really a "fix".

There is another thing you could use that has been on my mind: upon being to healed from 0 HP, you need to spend 1 HD (that does not heal you) or remain incapacitated for X rounds.

[holygroundj]

Maintaining saves does not actually solve yo-yoing at all. Yo-yoing can, and usually does, happen before the person makes a save.

It's not a bad idea, just not really a "fix".

Yo-yoing is a meta gamey way of dealing with healing in 5e. The idea is, in the meta game, it's better to let a person drop to 0 then blow a heal than it is to heal before they drop to 0.

If a person is at 5/25hp, healing for 7-8 before they drop might save them a turn, but you're blowing your action to do so. Or you can just let them drop to 0, then use a bonus action (or lay on hands or whatever) to allow them to get right back up.

The idea being, it's better to damage the enemy on your turn than heal your friends.

By making the saves "stick" until a rest, you remove the tactical metagamey-ness of it. Sure they can still go down and up (and honestly, I don't mind that being a tactic some of the time) but it becomes infinitely more dangerous to allow someone to drop to 0. It makes using healing in combat more of a decision.

[Kryx]

By making the saves "stick" until a rest, you remove the tactical metagamey-ness of it. Sure they can still go down and up (and honestly, I don't mind that being a tactic some of the time) but it becomes infinitely more dangerous to allow someone to drop to 0. It makes using healing in combat more of a decision.

It doesn't though. In all cases of yo-yo that I've seen the healing is done the first round before a save has been rolled.

It may add to the fear of doing it if multiple enemies are nearby, but it doesn't fix yo-yo.

[Person_Man]

Reading through the various comments, it seems like part of the issue is that some people try and balance encounters to the party's level, similar to how it was handled in 4E. And so they want the healing rules to reflect that appropriate level of balance, so that combat is not too hard or too easy.

I personally choose not to do this. Balance between the players and the enemies they encounter in the game world is not a goal. (Although some semblance of balance between the players is a goal. You don't want the Wizard to completely outshine the Fighter in all situations). But balance between the players and their opponents not important to me.

I throw up whatever enemies seem appropriate for the story and/or situation, and provide a mix of easy/on-par/hard/impossible NPCs/monsters, who all follow their routines or agendas according to their nature and/or goals. The players are free to observe and interact with them however they wish. If they choose combat, they deal with the results. They can also choose to surrender, to run, to try and lure enemies into an ambush, to bargain, to kill them, whatever. Sometimes PCs die. Sometimes they triumph. Sometimes they die in encounters I thought were easy, or kill a boss monster in 1 round, or take an hour to fight a combat against a mob of enemies I thought would take 10 minutes, or use the decanter of endless water to flood a dungeon I thought they'd explore, or whatever. Stuff happens.

If your players think that repeated balanced combat is the most fun, then by all means go for it. But my observation has been that 5E doesn't do that kind of combat particularly well, and so attempting to do so may be futile.

[GiantOctopodes]

Problem: Player drops to 0, but can be healed to be back up and fighting with little consequences (besides falling prone). The system by default almost encourages healers to wait until the target goes down before healing, because the overkill damage is ignored. Example: if a 20 hp character takes 15 damage, you then need 15 points of healing to top him back off. However, if a character at 1 hp takes 15 damage, you can heal him for a single point and get him back and fully operation again. The concern of dying goes away after level 3.

Solution 1: Add a level of exhaustion if the player falls to 0.
Exhaustion thread 1 (http://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/2qtyl3/drop_to_0_hp_or_below_gain_one_level_of_exhaustion/), Exhaustion thread 2 (http://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/2gm1u4/optional_rule_level_of_exhaustion_after_being/)
Exhaustion levels are serious business. One isn't that bad, but after a few levels the character is seriously debilitated and at 6 the character dies. This would cause players to "respect" hitting 0 hp a little more.

Solution 2: Track negative HP alongside the normal death rules.
Negative hp thread (http://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/2qush5/tracking_negative_hp_yay_or_nay/)
This would require that you heal the damaged amount to get back to fighting. The consequences are more immediate than the exhaustion system.

Solution 3: Lasting Injuries.
We looked into this system. It doesn't really prevent the issue above without being too much of a nuisance imo.

Solution 4: Be a mean DM and have decently intelligent enemies kill downed opponents if any healing happens.
This should happen in some cases, but I would really rather not be super aggressive with this. Making it an arms races is the least desired approach for DM and players.



I'm sure most don't mind the current system and there are many who will say "don't touch it!!!", but I've also seen a growing number of others who do not like the yo-yo system.

So please post if you think this is a problem and if you've chosen to implement any of the above systems, or if you think there is a better one.

At our table we don't use death saving throws, but if we did, I would say not having them reset is possibly viable. However, if someone with healing word goes after the monsters but before the person being knocked down, death saving throws don't really come into play at all.

Solution 4 we definitely already have in play, unless the enemies are unintelligent. I don't think of it as being mean, just playing them at their intelligence level in a universe where magical healing exists. Someone down but not dead is (in our games) 1 spent action away from being either dead or fully functional. If the first thing as a player I would do is finish off a baddie I don't want back up or bring back up a player I don't want to die, why would the enemies think any differently?

I don't really like the lasting injuries or negative HP solutions. Lasting injuries are simply not fun for the players. Negative HP mean someone critted badly may take many rounds or the majority of the healing resources available to pick back up, and may make it impossible to save someone, which again is simply not fun.

I *really* like the exhaustion bit, and will be recommending that to my DM in the game I am playing. It makes sense to me. Obviously, because that's how we play, it would apply then both to friendlies and enemies.

That being said, one of the dangers you face is the possibility of someone being used as a "healbot", if someone in your party has healing magic and is getting begged to heal every round so people don't go down, in no way is that fun for them (unless it is, but that would be the exception, not the rule). As such, I would talk to them and the party, and make it clear that everyone is responsible for their own HP, and no one person should be expected to use more actions in combat to heal than another, so if they want in combat healing they should look at getting the healer feat and healing themselves. Just my thoughts.

tl;dr: I recommend using exhaustion, not resetting death saving throws, *and* having "go for the throat" style enemies who actively try to kill downed PCs, as long as their int is higher than 3.

[Myzz]

The problem I foresee in using "lingering" death "fails", for a lack of a better term... is you change the meta-game mechanic from the in combat yo-yo, to taking a short rest or whatever you set the reset mechanic as, as a default anytime, anyone ever went down... even if its just one lingering fail, they are essentially 1/3 of the way to death...

if thats a viable alternative for you, by all means use it. Linger fails, however means that eventually they are going to just fail and die...

[Easy_Lee]

To expand on what Myzz said, players don't generally enjoy unfair deaths. If you tell the player they're dead because you rolled their death saves in secret and they failed X many since their last long rest or whatever, that's not going to make the player happy.

I really have to wonder why this came up at all. I've never heard of players trying to live on the edge by yo-yoing death. Eventually something is going to crit you and deal more overkill than your constitution score can survive. Even in the unlikely situation where it did become a problem, I would just tell the player that they come back dazed and either lose a turn or get knocked back to last in the initiative count. Getting knocked unconscious is no minor thing, after all.

[Kryx]

I really have to wonder why this came up at all. I've never heard of players trying to live on the edge by yo-yoing death. Eventually something is going to crit you and deal more overkill than your constitution score can survive.

You don't die at negative con. You die if the overflow damage is equal or greater than your hp. This would be super rare to happen level 3+

[Tvtyrant]

You don't die at negative con. You die if the overflow damage is equal or greater than your hp. This would be super rare to happen level 3+

Yup, this is why I suggest just knocking them out with they hit 0. Then being dropped is a massive issue for the group but not immediately lethal for the player.

[Easy_Lee]

Ah, we'll that's new, but don't you automatically suffer a death saving throw failure if you take damage while down? I know I read that somewhere, and it seems like that is enough of a penalty by itself. Just take three hits while unconscious and you die immediately, meaning a multi-attacking boss or swarm is still deadly.

Also, it seems to me that treating it as such would work just as well: stabilize resets your death saving throw count to 0, and you don't have to make any more after that as normal, but stabilization doesn't bring your HP back to 0. That way people just sit around stable at negative HP, and one heal doesn't bring them all the way back up. Getting hit once would give them a death fail as normal, so it would be in everyone's best interests not to get knocked out at all.

Again, have you actually had players do this, or is it theoretical?

[Kryx]

Ah, we'll that's new, but don't you automatically suffer a death saving throw failure if you take damage while down? I know I read that somewhere, and it seems like that is enough of a penalty by itself. Just take three hits while unconscious and you die immediately, meaning a multi-attacking boss or swarm is still deadly.

Actually each attack that hits is a crit, so 2 failures:


Any attack that hits the creature is a critical hit if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature

And all of that is fine how it is - I just find the 1hp heal to be cheesy and will likely do the requirement I put above.



Also, it seems to me that treating it as such would work just as well: stabilize resets your death saving throw count to 0, and you don't have to make any more after that as normal, but stabilization doesn't bring your HP back to 0. That way people just sit around stable at negative HP, and one heal doesn't bring them all the way back up. Getting hit once would give them a death fail as normal, so it would be in everyone's best interests not to get knocked out at all.

Negative HP was an option I put up, but given the feedback here I agree it is a bad choice due to heals not healing for much


Again, have you actually had players do this, or is it theoretical?

Yes, we've played for 2 and a half months now (about 5-7 hours a week) - all test sessions at different levels to test the system. The biggest issue has been Paladin LoH and goodberry force feeding.
Now, if you're going to question my experience you should at least know the death rules you're discussing. Bit hypocritical when you got several things wrong in the last 2 posts. :P

[hawklost]

A Possible way to handle it is to track negative HP in a separate sense.

Every time a player goes below 0 between rests (either short or long, DM decision) and they have -hp, it adds up. If the player gets to the full negative life because of a hit, they die. Healing still heals from 0 hp and up so that doesn't change and neither does the 3 strikes, only how long you can do that before you die anyways.

That way if players go down to -20 and has 30 max hp, even though they yo-yoed back up without a death saving throw thanks to the cleric, they now only have a pool of 10 -hp left until they rest. If they go below that, there system cannot take the damage/heal anymore and they die.

[Myzz]

Actually each attack that hits is a crit, so 2 failures

rolling a 1 on death save = 2 failures

taking dmg (non-crit) = 1 failure

Taking crit dmg = 2 failures

every attack is not a crit... but every attack has advantage and the likelyhood of a crit increases

<paralyzed would give the auto crit to attackers w/n 5ft your thinking of>

[Kryx]

every attack is not a crit... but every attack has advantage and the likelyhood of a crit increases

Exactly what I said: Every attack that hits is a crit. And every attack is at advantage. So likely 2 fails.

[Myzz]

Exactly what I said: Every attack that hits is a crit. And every attack is at advantage. So likely 2 fails.

being at 0 HP does not = being paralyzed...

No where in the description of incapacitated does it say "every hit is a crit"

where is the every hit is a crit come from? The DM's increased chance to roll a 20? <due to advantage>

[Kryx]

being at 0 HP does not = being paralyzed...

No where in the description of incapacitated does it say "every hit is a crit"

where is the every hit is a crit come from? The DM's increased chance to roll a 20? <due to advantage>

Unconscious:


Unconscious

An unconscious creature is incapacitated (see the condition), can’t move or speak, and is unaware of its surroundings
The creature drops whatever it’s holding and falls prone.
The creature automatically fails Strength and Dexterity saving throws.
Attack rolls against the creature have advantage.
Any attack that hits the creature is a critical hit if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature

[Myzz]

Unconscious:

thanks...

ALL attack rolls having advantage seem counter-intuitive if its prone...

[Kryx]

ALL attack rolls having advantage seem counter-intuitive if its prone...

It's meant to allow ranged attacks to "coup de grace" at melee range. The same thing is written under prone:


An attack roll against the creature has advantage if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature. Otherwise, the attack roll has disadvantage

[Easy_Lee]

Now, if you're going to question my experience you should at least know the death rules you're discussing. Bit hypocritical when you got several things wrong in the last 2 posts. :P

Reason I asked is because I assumed most DMs would have done what I would do; tell the players not to cheese the system and punish them if they do. My usual response is giving them a taste of their own medicine (have enemy NPCs behave like players, but with better coordination). I assumed other DMs would use the same kind of tactics si these kinds of things wouldn't come up in actual play (like many theoretical problems / strategies posted online about D&D).

So pardon my assumption that no actual DM would let his players get away with this, house rules or not.

[Easy_Lee]

Incidentally, guild wars 2 has this exact kind of system where going to 0 HP knocks you down and healing brings you back up immediately. Their solution was to limit how many times players can go down in a row before they stay down for good, similar to but not quite the same as death saving throws. Just an idea.

[Kryx]

Reason I asked is because I assumed most DMs would have done what I would do; tell the players not to cheese the system and punish them if they do. My usual response is giving them a taste of their own medicine (have enemy NPCs behave like players, but with better coordination). I assumed other DMs would use the same kind of tactics si these kinds of things wouldn't come up in actual play (like many theoretical problems / strategies posted online about D&D).

My players come from a 3.x mindset where there are set rules and expectations - some argue that the 1 hp LoH is meant to be what I consider cheesy.

I try to be quite democratic with my approach to houserules - they are discussed and fully documented.

[Naanomi]

One GM solution in my area (not mine): if you are downed more than once per short rest you roll Death Saves at disadvantage; and if you get put down after being healed but before you get an action it doesn't reset your failed save counter

[Vogonjeltz]

While I enjoy the whole "you suck as a DM" condescension as much as the next guy it really isn't appropriate.

•Massive damage - this is a variant rule, not core. Nor is it instant death.
•Hitting a healer is harder than it sounds when a healer is a Paladin. Tactical battles w/ 1 dragon leaves plenty of opportunity for yo-yoing.
•Aggressively Focusing downed PCs is something I specifically said I'd rather avoid.
•They've fought many dangerous things. Yo-yoing is still viable via things like healing word.


Please take your condescension elsewhere. It isn't wanted in this thread.

I didn't say you suck as a DM. I was trying to be helpful to you by giving suggestions, using already existing material from the DMG, MM, and PHB, for ways to guide your players away from the yo-yo tactic as you requested.

Regarding Massive Damage, sorry I meant Instant Death, PHB 197 - When damage the character takes damage at 0 hp that is equal or greater than their maximum hp, they die instantly, no save. Still, Massive Damage is at least a vetted variant, so you wouldn't even have to do any work to add it.

Paladin doesn't have Healing Word, only Bards, Clerics, and Druids do. I meant instead them instead of having enemies obviously waste their efforts on the Fighter, Paladin, or Barbarian who is clearly being healed by one of the former.

I don't agree with you that employing all an NPCs abilities against an enemy (PC) constitutes Aggressively Focusing; I'd reserve that for when an enemy drops a PC and then ALL the other enemies within range turn and pounce on them to kill them. What I'm suggesting is just having more 2 or 3 on 1s. (i.e. 2-3 enemies available for every one PC) or having a few enemies each with multiple attacks...I believe Hobgoblins fit the bill.

What I would consider a dangerous thing is something capable of causing Instant Death (above). Sorry if I was oblique there.

[Tenmujiin]

Which is why I chose not to do the ones that affect normal heals - only the 1 hp cheese stuff.

You didn't get my point.

The reason yo-yoing happens imo is that healing is an incredibly inefficient use of your action. Why would I use a turn to heal an ally for 1d8+wis (cure wounds) when I could use the same action to deal an enemy 2d8 AND give an ally advantage on their next attack (guiding bolt) or AoE for 2d8 (shatter, i'm a tempest cleric). The problem only gets worse the higher the spell slot being used.

If you want to stop yo-yoing you need to make healing a more effective use on an action, particularly if the target is above 0 (someone suggested having healing spells let the target use their HD in combat) rather than nerfing healing.

[Kryx]

If you want to stop yo-yoing you need to make healing a more effective use on an action, particularly if the target is above 0 (someone suggested having healing spells let the target use their HD in combat) rather than nerfing healing.

I'm not nerfing healing - no healing is reduced. The only thing I'm changing from RAW is that a paladin can only bring 1 creature up from unconsciousness per paladin level instead of 5. Goodberries can't do what I previously ruled them to do.
Cleric and everything else is staying the same - it isn't OP and wasn't really my concern from the beginning on further examination that I detailed above.

[Knaight]

It's meant to allow ranged attacks to "coup de grace" at melee range. The same thing is written under prone:

Plus, it's not like being prone is a meaningful defense against someone 5 feet away with a bow. There's still a pretty wide angle they can use to hit you, it's comparable to standing. At long distance, the angle changes dramatically relative to someone standing.

[unwise]

In my current game PCs can fail 4 death saving throws rather than three. Each time they drop to zero HP, that is one death save automatically gone, then continue dying as normal. The failed saves don't recover until a long rest. This means that a PC can only fall down 3 times in a day at most and you don't want to rely on that.

[This be Richard]

It's been suggested a couple times that hitting 0 hp leave characters unconscious for the remainder of the fight. Part of me likes that, but it takes away the ability of pretty much any healing effect -- even powerful ones -- to do much more than stabilize a dying creature. Granted, you might be able to restore plenty of positive HP, but if they're still unconscious for the rest of the fight, that doesn't mean much unless you're having the enemies try to kill downed targets, which starts the kind of arms race we're looking to avoid in this topic.

With that said, it occurs to me that you could still make it more difficult for downed characters to get back in the fight without making it impossible. What if downed characters needed to use an action -- or even just a bonus action -- shaking off their exhaustion before getting back into the fight? Or what if they had to pass a Con save before they could start taking actions again?
I'm not sure if these are good ideas, as they still indirectly nerf healing a bit, but they still seem kind of appealing from where I'm sitting.