Looted and Left for Dead: Why slower natural healing is actually GOOD for players

[MaxWilson]

Public Service Announcement:

A DM who makes natural healing slower (e.g. no Hit Die healing on a short rest) is not necessarily out to get you and make the game harder. Another motivation for slowing down natural healing is the desire to avoid killing PCs.

When a PC is defeated by an enemy, the enemy can either:

(1) Loot his body and leave him for dead.
(2) Eat him.
(3) Cut his throat and then burn the ashes to make sure no one will ever Revivify him.

When the PCs lose an encounter (either TPK-style where everybody hits zero HP, or by having some PCs retreat successfully while others hit zero HP), a softhearted DM may want to choose option #1 and have the enemies loot the PC and leave them for dead, especially if they have no special reason to care whether PCs live or die. But this behavior makes no sense if PCs have a 20% chance to spontaneously come back to 1 HP and full activity (using vanilla RAW death save rules for natural 20), and a 100% chance to revive to 1 HP after 1-4 hours, and a good chance to be at 100% HP an hour after that thanks to short rest healing.

Slowing down natural healing so that a downed foe is out for a day or several days (just as in real life) is one way to make stories less deliberately-murderous.

This doesn't mean you won't get eaten by an animal or murdered by an NPC who specifically hates your guts or bleed out after being left for dead. But it lets softhearted DMs give you a chance not to die even when you lose a fight.

That is all.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I mean, you missed option (4) Take them prisoner. Cliché, yeah, but depending on the opponent, it can make a lot of sense.

Of course, when you consider the opponents who would take you captive, death may have been a preferable option.

[MaxWilson]

I mean, you missed option (4) Take them prisoner. Cliché, yeah, but depending on the opponent, it can make a lot of sense.

Of course, when you consider the opponents who would take you captive, death may have been a preferable option.

Yes, #4 is also an option. Like #1 but to a lesser extent, it works better on opponents who will be wounded and at low effectiveness for days instead of hours.

[quindraco]

Public Service Announcement:
A DM who makes natural healing slower (e.g. no Hit Die healing on a short rest) is not necessarily out to get you and make the game harder. Another motivation for slowing down natural healing is the desire to avoid killing PCs.

<SNIP>

Slowing down natural healing so that a downed foe is out for a day or several days (just as in real life) is one way to make stories less deliberately-murderous.

I doubt very many foes use this as their rubric for threat assessments. Either you care enough to do something about it, like confirming your targets are dead, or you don't. The difference between the party coming back this afternoon or tomorrow is negligible.

[Witty Username]

I can depend on when you move camp. I mean, if the bandits move camp every couple days, or move every few hours this will change threat assessment.
And it will change the dynamic of Opperation: get our crap back.

Also, it can make fight commitment change a bit, it is a way easier decision to cut and run if you have multiple days of your potential pursuers figuring out how to recover. This will only come up is situations where both combat groups benefit from cutting their losses or if one group has inflicted dangerous amounts of damage but not enough to decide the combat in their favor.

I would also say long stretches of recovery, add inherent downtime. If the party fighter is out for the week for a broken foot, then the party wizard got figure out what spells to put in his book. This can smooth over conflict on when and how much downtime to take.

[MaxWilson]

I doubt very many foes use this as their rubric for threat assessments. Either you care enough to do something about it, like confirming your targets are dead, or you don't. The difference between the party coming back this afternoon or tomorrow is negligible.

PCs do this all the time. I rarely see PCs confirming their kills (because they're down for hours or days). But if I made monsters come back to full activity in seconds or hours, you bet they'd confirm their kills routinely.

"Oh no, the hydra is alive AGAIN?! Dmitri, why didn't you finish it off?"

In any case, due to slower healing rules I was able to avoid killing two or more PCs today, and I count that as a win.

[KorvinStarmast]

But if I made monsters come back to full activity in seconds or hours, you bet they'd confirm their kills routinely. Zombies already do this. :smallwink: (Undead fortitude).
Trolls also. (regenerate). Vampires do this also. (Do they ever die without a stake through the heart?)

"Oh no, the hydra is alive AGAIN?! Dmitri, why didn't you finish it off?" We've had conversations like this at my tables.

In any case, due to slower healing rules I was able to avoid killing two or more PCs today, and I count that as a win. The lost loot was a lot more than the 'cost' (presumed) of paying a cleric for a raise dead spell, :smallfrown: but now we don't have to find such a cleric. Convenience costs money, I guess. :smallbiggrin:

[MaxWilson]

Zombies already do this. :smallwink: (Undead fortitude).
Trolls also. (regenerate). Vampires do this also. (Do they ever die without a stake through the heart?)

Exactly! You've seen how players are about finishing off trolls and zombies. "Burn it to ashes with fire!" There's a reason they get special treatment.

BTW, nothing says vampires become immune to damage while reduced to 0 HP mist. They just don't go unconscious. I've had vampires incinerated by red dragon breath for example, without ever reaching their coffins.


The lost loot was a lot more than the 'cost' (presumed) of paying a cleric for a raise dead spell, :smallfrown: but now we don't have to find such a cleric. Convenience costs money, I guess. :smallbiggrin:

Not just lost loot though--it also explains why the Oni were so nonchalant about finishing you off. Their logic: "Oni regenerate. Humans don't. They're done for; we've won. Let's loot the pyramid."

If 60 minutes of rest could reverse that, the Oni (and Oni leadership) would have acted differently, and I might have had to kill six (N)PCs today instead of just one. You'd be like trolls or zombies--have to stomp them flat before they recover.

[mr_stibbons]

In typical campaigns, the party being TPKed is so rare that the monsters not responding "logically" is probably not going to be a big issue with your players suspension of disbelief. I use quotes because monsters do not necessarily know how the rules work, and PC's in 5th edition do not follow the same rules as most creatures, so it's entirely justifiable that the monsters underestimate the durability of PCs. Regardless, players are pretty tolerant of breaks from reality that keep the campaign from ending on an anticlimax.

Even ignoring that, there are less punishing ways to enforce this rule-just increase the amount of time before a stablized PC wakes up on their own without healing or medicine checks. Removing short rest healing doesn't actually need to be part of this fix at all.

Lastly, I have a hard time believing most monsters will rummage through you pockets while unconscious without killing a few PCs whether by accident, out of bloodthirst or paranoia that someone is faking and going to attack them. If you like gritty campaigns, that's your prerogative, but this logic doesn't hold water.

[Dork_Forge]

I think this is more of a playstyle thing than anything else, this is only a logical conclusion is the enemies are aware of this being how hit points and resting work through observation of their world.

But, and I this is my experience both sides of the screen but monsters rarely, if ever get death saving throws. It's not a standard of the world, it's an exception for exceptional individuals, which is conveyed pretty well in the PHB text:


Most DMs have a monster die the instant that it drops to 0 hit points, rather than having it fall unconscious and make death saving throws.

Mighty villains and special nonplayer characters are common exceptions: the DM might have them fall unconscious and follow the same rules as player characters.

When 99% of the world just die at 0hp, the connection to PC healing mechanics isn't logically there unless they have some particular hate or desire to make doubly sure they're dead, even though the know what they did is usually enough.

I'm not saying it can't be a valid reason, but it takes a step away from PHB assumed norms to begin with to really become a thing (imo), whereas pretty much every other reason for slower healing is either balance considerations (making it harder) or versimillitude based, which I get.

[ff7hero]

In any case, due to slower healing rules I was able to avoid killing two or more PCs today, and I count that as a win.

Any fight you can walk(/crawl/be carried) away from is a win.

I am glad to see this post. I had a slight feeling you had gone easy on us (well, me specifically if I'm being honest), but this context makes Asha's survival seem "fairer."

[EggKookoo]

In typical campaigns, the party being TPKed is so rare that the monsters not responding "logically" is probably not going to be a big issue with your players suspension of disbelief. I use quotes because monsters do not necessarily know how the rules work, and PC's in 5th edition do not follow the same rules as most creatures, so it's entirely justifiable that the monsters underestimate the durability of PCs. Regardless, players are pretty tolerant of breaks from reality that keep the campaign from ending on an anticlimax.

This is it exactly. Most fights result in a TPK... the "P" in this case being the NPC party.

We had a conversation early on in my campaign and we came to the decision that the PCs confirm kills of any "non person" NPC (beasts, most monstrosities or aberrations and whatnot). The players didn't want to be random murderers, so if reducing an opponent to 0 HP and it squeaks by, chances are it will realize it had been bested and retreat. Playing in an urban setting also means killing another citizen can cause complications with the authorities. I have had such defeated opponents return, sometimes weeks later. Usually the PCs make sure to put down such an opponent permanently the second time, under the assumption that it didn't know what was good for it.

[JackPhoenix]

Not just lost loot though--it also explains why the Oni were so nonchalant about finishing you off. Their logic: "Oni regenerate. Humans don't. They're done for; we've won. Let's loot the pyramid."

If 60 minutes of rest could reverse that, the Oni (and Oni leadership) would have acted differently, and I might have had to kill six (N)PCs today instead of just one. You'd be like trolls or zombies--have to stomp them flat before they recover.

Eh. How much of a difference does it make if the PCs come after you in a hour or in a day? You still have problem that could've been avoided by taking few seconds to whack them while they are down. And it's not like natural healing is the only way to get back to full health, or that someone on less than full health can't still be a threat.

Sounds like an attempt to justify the GM's decision not to kill the characters, not something you only could do thanks to a houserule or a variant.

[MaxWilson]

I'm not saying it can't be a valid reason, but it takes a step away from PHB assumed norms to begin with to really become a thing (imo), whereas pretty much every other reason for slower healing is either balance considerations (making it harder) or versimillitude based, which I get.

I do have to point out that the PHB itself points out that some DMs run things the other way ("most do" = "some don't"), but your point is valid. It is a playstyle thing.

My point is that it's not necessarily motivated by a desire to make the game harder for players. Sometimes, it's the opposite.

YMMV.


Any fight you can walk(/crawl/be carried) away from is a win.

I am glad to see this post. I had a slight feeling you had gone easy on us (well, me specifically if I'm being honest), but this context makes Asha's survival seem "fairer."

I am glad it felt fair to you. :) Fairness is really important to me, along with making the world feel "real" and giving players meaningful decisions to make.

[quindraco]

PCs do this all the time. I rarely see PCs confirming their kills (because they're down for hours or days). But if I made monsters come back to full activity in seconds or hours, you bet they'd confirm their kills routinely.

"Oh no, the hydra is alive AGAIN?! Dmitri, why didn't you finish it off?"

In any case, due to slower healing rules I was able to avoid killing two or more PCs today, and I count that as a win.

The only reason I don't confirm my kills in the general case is when my DM declares up front that NPCs "just die" without engaging in death saves. Otherwise, you can bet your bottom dollar I won't leave a sapient enemy potentially alive to seek revenge. That is, I don't confirm my kills only because the DM has told me my kills auto-confirm. In any other situation, unless I'm pressed for time, I confirm all kills.

[MaxWilson]

The only reason I don't confirm my kills in the general case is when my DM declares up front that NPCs "just die" without engaging in death saves. Otherwise, you can bet your bottom dollar I won't leave a sapient enemy potentially alive to seek revenge. That is, I don't confirm my kills only because the DM has told me my kills auto-confirm. In any other situation, unless I'm pressed for time, I confirm all kills.

That's fair. But either your DM runs a nasty, paranoid universe where this kind of thing is actually necessary, or your PC is IMO more bloodthirsty than the norm. I have plenty of players who aren't particularly eager to make even enemies into corpses, especially enemies much weaker than they are. Ditto NPCs who, on average, don't care that much about turning PCs into corpses.

A gang of 12 human bandits who ambushes a lone traveler and takes his sheep and his coat and his purse is, in my game, not particularly likely to turn the traveler into a corpse. If bandits do kill him and mutilate or eat the body it's intended as a deliberate signal that these bandits are Not Right In the Head, but otherwise they would be perfectly happy for him to bring them a new sheep next month.

This is part of the logic behind why the Onis in question didn't bother to finish off the PCs. Also, Onis are semi-immortal and like fighting, so leaving PCs beaten but still breathing preserves opportunities for future "fun."

[quindraco]

That's fair. But either your DM runs a nasty, paranoid universe where this kind of thing is actually necessary, or your PC is IMO more bloodthirsty than the norm. I have plenty of players who aren't particularly eager to make even enemies into corpses, especially enemies much weaker than they are. Ditto NPCs who, on average, don't care that much about turning PCs into corpses.

A gang of 12 human bandits who ambushes a lone traveler and takes his sheep and his coat and his purse is, in my game, not particularly likely to turn the traveler into a corpse. If bandits do kill him and mutilate or eat the body it's intended as a deliberate signal that these bandits are Not Right In the Head, but otherwise they would be perfectly happy for him to bring them a new sheep next month.

This is part of the logic behind why the Onis in question didn't bother to finish off the PCs. Also, Onis are semi-immortal and like fighting, so leaving PCs beaten but still breathing preserves opportunities for future "fun."

A gang of 12 bandits wants the traveler to survive and make the journey again to be looted again - they're like farmers. You don't kill off your livestock as a farmer.

But if those same 12 bandits ambushed an army squad on patrol hunting them? You murder them, confirm the kills to ensure you have no witnesses, then GTFO until the heat dies down.

[MaxWilson]

A gang of 12 bandits wants the traveler to survive and make the journey again to be looted again - they're like farmers. You don't kill off your livestock as a farmer.

But if those same 12 bandits ambushed an army squad on patrol hunting them? You murder them, confirm the kills to ensure you have no witnesses, then GTFO until the heat dies down.

Yep, I agree, in that case they would because they fear retaliation from the Army. (If they know how magic works they also burn the bodies and hide the ashes to prevent Speak With Dead.)

Leaving an enemy for dead can be a statement of mercy, or of contempt. (Just ask Inigo Montoya!) It depends on the intent.

[Tanarii]

PCs do this all the time. I rarely see PCs confirming their kills (because they're down for hours or days). But if I made monsters come back to full activity in seconds or hours, you bet they'd confirm their kills routinely.
They don't already do that? You've got weird players.

[MaxWilson]

They don't already do that? You've got weird players.

It's tough to generalize but some of my oldest friends are both very savvy and also soft-hearted about unnecessary kills. Partly BECAUSE they know they can kill (certain) monsters easily if necessary, they are reluctant to do so explicitly. They don't even cut the heads off ghouls.

[KorvinStarmast]

They don't even cut the heads off ghouls. What? It's the only party worth saving. Ghoul's Head Soup is a fine album meal . Saves money on iron rations as well.

(Two points, and you're a star, if you get the reference without using Google)

[Lunali]

Public Service Announcement:
A DM who makes natural healing slower (e.g. no Hit Die healing on a short rest) is not necessarily out to get you and make the game harder. Another motivation for slowing down natural healing is the desire to avoid killing PCs.

I disagree, if you're slowing down natural healing its because you want characters to suffer hp attrition more quickly. If you want NPCs to not be as inclined to go after downed characters, you'll create a mechanic that addresses death saves and automatic recovery instead.

[MaxWilson]

I disagree, if you're slowing down natural healing its because you want characters to suffer hp attrition more quickly. If you want NPCs to not be as inclined to go after downed characters, you'll create a mechanic that addresses death saves and automatic recovery instead.

Why not both? Done and done.

Slowing down natural healing allows monsters to reasonably write off heavily-wounded PCs as a security threat, and not just unconscious ones. Monsters don't necessarily know if PCs have speed healer traits like Healer or Cure Wounds, but they certainly will know what the normal healing rate is for "any creature" in 5E, per PHB 93: “any creature... can spend Hit Dice during a short rest.”

Therefore, it helps to change the rules so that "any creature" can no longer do so, which changes monster default expectations and BTW allows PCs to be a little more exceptional/surprising.

[Sorinth]

What does this have to do with natural healing? It's magic healing that has players pop back up making people need to confirm their kills not natural healing.

Also even if you make natural healing slower, you haven't changed the death saves which means even if you don't confirm your kills a few bad rolls and they are dead anyways so you aren't saving PC lives in any way.



If you dislike pop-up healing then just address that directly. The easy solution is regaining HP doesn't end the unconscious condition. So a downed PC who gets hit by Healing Word is still down and out of the fight but they are stable and no longer making death saves.

[MaxWilson]

What does this have to do with natural healing? It's magic healing that has players pop back up making people need to confirm their kills not natural healing

Slowing down natural healing allows monsters to reasonably write off heavily-wounded PCs as a security threat, and not just unconscious ones. Monsters don't necessarily know if PCs have speed healer traits like Healer or Cure Wounds, but they certainly will know what the normal healing rate is for "any creature" in 5E, per PHB 93: “any creature... can spend Hit Dice during a short rest.”

Therefore, it helps to change the rules so that "any creature" can no longer do so, which changes monster default expectations and BTW allows PCs to be a little more exceptional/surprising.

[EggKookoo]

Slowing down natural healing allows monsters to reasonably write off heavily-wounded PCs as a security threat, and not just unconscious ones. Monsters don't necessarily know if PCs have speed healer traits like Healer or Cure Wounds, but they certainly will know what the normal healing rate is for "any creature" in 5E, per PHB 93: “any creature... can spend Hit Dice during a short rest.”

Therefore, it helps to change the rules so that "any creature" can no longer do so, which changes monster default expectations and BTW allows PCs to be a little more exceptional/surprising.

It's funny how different people interpret rules. My interpretation is that only the exceptional stand a reasonable chance of succeeding on death saves. Most creatures just fail, which is why hitting 0 HP for an NPC is usually equivalent to death. Exceptional creatures are those who, after hitting 0 over and over again, managed to consistently pull through. Of course you don't know your PC will be one of those until you've done it a lot and survive to a decently high level.

So my monster assumes your PC dropping "dead" to the ground after being smacked by a greatclub means you're probably dead, because in its experience that's what happens.

[Segev]

I'm not sure I follow your notion of a "20% chance they'll pop up and be fully active." Are you implying a 20% chance that a fellow PC will use a healing spell on them?

Absent magical healing, even stabilized characters require care or a DM-determined length of time (I think roughly an hour is common) to wake back up with 1 hp.

I'm not in general a fan of it, but the somewhat frequently-mentioned house rule that you gain a level of Exhaustion every time you go to 0 hp would better serve the "you almost died and will take time to recover" purpose than otherwise slowing down hp recovery. Certainly, a short rest's hit dice mechanic being prevented in some way wouldn't encourage "loot them and leave them for dead" behavior in enemies.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I'm not sure I follow your notion of a "20% chance they'll pop up and be fully active." Are you implying a 20% chance that a fellow PC will use a healing spell on them?

Absent magical healing, even stabilized characters require care or a DM-determined length of time (I think roughly an hour is common) to wake back up with 1 hp.

I'm not in general a fan of it, but the somewhat frequently-mentioned house rule that you gain a level of Exhaustion every time you go to 0 hp would better serve the "you almost died and will take time to recover" purpose than otherwise slowing down hp recovery. Certainly, a short rest's hit dice mechanic being prevented in some way wouldn't encourage "loot them and leave them for dead" behavior in enemies.

The rule is 1d4 hours to regain 1 hit point after being stabilized.

Personally, I only reset failed death saves after a LR to help maintain at least some tension, as I'm a huge opponent of the groundhog-style of play that 5E seems to encourage.

[PhantomSoul]

I'm not sure I follow your notion of a "20% chance they'll pop up and be fully active." Are you implying a 20% chance that a fellow PC will use a healing spell on them?

Absent magical healing, even stabilized characters require care or a DM-determined length of time (I think roughly an hour is common) to wake back up with 1 hp.

For the 20%, that's presumably an approximation of your chances of rolling a Nat 20 on a Death Saving Throw. The exact numbers, with DC 10 Death Saving Throws:
- Popping up at 1 HP (i.e. Nat 20 before 3 successes or failures): total 18.14% chance. Across all possible outcomes, 5% on turn 1, 4.75% on turn 2, 4.3% on turn 3, 2.89% on turn 4, and 1.2% on turn 5.
- Stabilising (i.e. 3 successes before one 20 or three failures): 41.38% overall; 12.5% on turn 3, 16.88% on turn 4, 12% on turn 5.
- Death (i.e. 3 failures before 3 successes or one 20): 40.49% overall; 4.25 on turn 2, 11.45% on turn 3, 13.99% on turn 4, 10.8% on turn 5.

Getting Failures from taking Damage and popping back up from getting Healed are on top of that.

[Segev]

The rule is 1d4 hours to regain 1 hit point after being stabilized.

Personally, I only reset failed death saves after a LR to help maintain at least some tension, as I'm a huge opponent of the groundhog-style of play that 5E seems to encourage.I would hope you give more death saves before dying, then, because this isn't just tense, it's brutal. 5e is built around the idea that people can be hammered to 0 hp every combat or so and still have PCs be able to survive.


For the 20%, that's presumably an approximation of your chances of rolling a Nat 20 on a Death Saving Throw. The exact numbers, with DC 10 Death Saving Throws:
- Popping up at 1 HP (i.e. Nat 20 before 3 successes or failures): total 18.14% chance. Across all possible outcomes, 5% on turn 1, 4.75% on turn 2, 4.3% on turn 3, 2.89% on turn 4, and 1.2% on turn 5.
- Stabilising (i.e. 3 successes before one 20 or three failures): 41.38% overall; 12.5% on turn 3, 16.88% on turn 4, 12% on turn 5.
- Death (i.e. 3 failures before 3 successes or one 20): 40.49% overall; 4.25 on turn 2, 11.45% on turn 3, 13.99% on turn 4, 10.8% on turn 5.

Getting Failures from taking Damage and popping back up from getting Healed are on top of that.
I'm too lazy to do the full expansion, but okay, .956=.735, so ignoring the chances of having died before 6 death saves are rolled, you have a 26.5% chance of rolling a nat 20 within six rounds. That's the right ballpark.


If you're really concerned about making hitting 0 have consequences beyond the duration of the fight itself, the "gain exhaustion" house rule is probably your best bet. It's very punishing, especially if it happens more than once.

You could modify it - especially with Kuulvheysoon's non-resetting death saves - such that each failed death save is a level of exhaustion. This naturally extends time-to-death to 6 failed death saves, but each failed death save has a serious consequence on its own.

[PhantomSoul]

I'm too lazy to do the full expansion, but okay, .956=.735, so ignoring the chances of having died before 6 death saves are rolled, you have a 26.5% chance of rolling a nat 20 within six rounds. That's the right ballpark.

I was guessing the 20% was plausibly rounding off 0.955 (= ~0.774), rounding upwards because you can stop making rolls before you reach the later chances at a Nat 20.



If you're really concerned about making hitting 0 have consequences beyond the duration of the fight itself, the "gain exhaustion" house rule is probably your best bet. It's very punishing, especially if it happens more than once.

I quite like this one...


You could modify it - especially with Kuulvheysoon's non-resetting death saves - such that each failed death save is a level of exhaustion. This naturally extends time-to-death to 6 failed death saves, but each failed death save has a serious consequence on its own.

...but swapping to this is quite appealing actually. (Seems like a different goal than the OP, but it does add across-data limits to being at full strength so that there's SOME lasting consequence.)

[MaxWilson]

For the 20%, that's presumably an approximation of your chances of rolling a Nat 20 on a Death Saving Throw. The exact numbers, with DC 10 Death Saving Throws:
- Popping up at 1 HP (i.e. Nat 20 before 3 successes or failures): total 18.14% chance. Across all possible outcomes, 5% on turn 1, 4.75% on turn 2, 4.3% on turn 3, 2.89% on turn 4, and 1.2% on turn 5.
- Stabilising (i.e. 3 successes before one 20 or three failures): 41.38% overall; 12.5% on turn 3, 16.88% on turn 4, 12% on turn 5.
- Death (i.e. 3 failures before 3 successes or one 20): 40.49% overall; 4.25 on turn 2, 11.45% on turn 3, 13.99% on turn 4, 10.8% on turn 5.

Getting Failures from taking Damage and popping back up from getting Healed are on top of that.

Yep, thanks for supplying exact numbers.


I would hope you give more death saves before dying, then, because this isn't just tense, it's brutal. 5e is built around the idea that people can be hammered to 0 hp every combat or so and still have PCs be able to survive.

I'm too lazy to do the full expansion, but okay, .956=.735, so ignoring the chances of having died before 6 death saves are rolled, you have a 26.5% chance of rolling a nat 20 within six rounds. That's the right ballpark.

If you're really concerned about making hitting 0 have consequences beyond the duration of the fight itself, the "gain exhaustion" house rule is probably your best bet. It's very punishing, especially if it happens more than once.

You could modify it - especially with Kuulvheysoon's non-resetting death saves - such that each failed death save is a level of exhaustion. This naturally extends time-to-death to 6 failed death saves, but each failed death save has a serious consequence on its own.

You guys are ratholing down a tangent. This thread isn't about pop-up healing, it's about natural healing and monster psychology.

In a hypothetical world without pop-up healing but with short rest healing, monsters would still have an incentive to chase down and finish off wounded foes before they can recover to full strength. Two 1 HP PCs and one 24-HP PC still need to be killed. In a world with slower healing, a monster at approximately full health can afford to sneer at those PCs and walk away.

Yesterday because of slower natural healing, I avoided killing at least two, maybe four PCs (and one PC-turned-NPC). That's a good thing. Pop-up healing wasn't an important psychological factor.

[Segev]

...but swapping to this is quite appealing actually. (Seems like a different goal than the OP, but it does add across-data limits to being at full strength so that there's SOME lasting consequence.)

If I understand MaxWilson's goals correctly, it should serve them as well as anything would. A 50% chance after one round of a level of exhaustion vs. a 5% chance after one round of them popping right back up isn't going to be worth stopping in the middle of a fight to kill them. And each round they stay down, they're more likely to be seriously weakened even if they do wake back up.

You don't even need to especially track "failed death saves," since the exhaustion levels do it for you, and hitting level 6 kills you anyway.

Stick with the 3 successful saves to stabilize, and a nat 20 popping you back up at 1 but without wiping any exhaustion levels, and there's serious consequences for going down, but you don't die until you've failed at least six death saves, and you need long rests to fully recover. Or at least more powerful magic than cure wounds.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I would hope you give more death saves before dying, then, because this isn't just tense, it's brutal. 5e is built around the idea that people can be hammered to 0 hp every combat or so and still have PCs be able to survive.

I'm too lazy to do the full expansion, but okay, .956=.735, so ignoring the chances of having died before 6 death saves are rolled, you have a 26.5% chance of rolling a nat 20 within six rounds. That's the right ballpark.

If you're really concerned about making hitting 0 have consequences beyond the duration of the fight itself, the "gain exhaustion" house rule is probably your best bet. It's very punishing, especially if it happens more than once.

You could modify it - especially with Kuulvheysoon's non-resetting death saves - such that each failed death save is a level of exhaustion. This naturally extends time-to-death to 6 failed death saves, but each failed death save has a serious consequence on its own.

Nope. Three failures is death. It's purposefully meant to be brutal, but my players have always been more on the "oh no, he's at low hp" type, and they're really good at healing the downed players at least a few points before their turn rolls around again. I also don't target downed PCs while there's still conscious foes to attack. It's worked out well for me and mine, though I definitely don't recommend it for everyone.

My issue with giving exhaustion levels upon hitting 0 hp is that after you hit 3, it's a death spiral. Levels 4-6 (death) are brutal.

[Pex]

The purpose, or the result if not the original intended purpose of the rule, is to encourage players to keep playing the game instead of long resting. When players are confident their character won't die on the next arrow hit they'll play on. Players don't want their characters to die. That's why they like to heal. Short rest HD healing also helps to relieve the burden of someone must play the Healer role. Various game mechanics does a good job of no longer having the cleric be the only one doing the healing, which was a major problem in earlier D&D versions. In my 2E college days I was literally yelled at in public the day after a game session because I dared to have my cleric cast a spell that wasn't Cure Light Wounds or even swing a weapon in combat. Having a Healer role be a choice instead of a burden makes for a more fun game. The Healer role is now a subset of the Support role. Players enjoy it more when it's by choice and not by necessity.

More cynical, the bad guys are at full health for the non-first combat of the day, and I see no reason why the PCs can't be either. It's a poor DM who can't stand it that the PCs are such. The players aren't healing for free, on the short rest. Long rest is more than just about healing. It is relevant, but it's only part of a bigger picture.

[MaxWilson]

If I understand MaxWilson's goals correctly, it should serve them as well as anything would. A 50% chance after one round of a level of exhaustion vs. a 5% chance after one round of them popping right back up isn't going to be worth stopping in the middle of a fight to kill them. And each round they stay down, they're more likely to be seriously weakened even if they do wake back up.

You don't even need to especially track "failed death saves," since the exhaustion levels do it for you, and hitting level 6 kills you anyway.

Stick with the 3 successful saves to stabilize, and a nat 20 popping you back up at 1 but without wiping any exhaustion levels, and there's serious consequences for going down, but you don't die until you've failed at least six death saves, and you need long rests to fully recover. Or at least more powerful magic than cure wounds.

No, it wouldn't help at all in this case. This isn't about whether the monster stops in the middle of a fight to kill them. This is about whether the monster sneers at the defeated foe, dismisses them as a threat, and goes back to looting treasure from a pyramid.

[PhantomSoul]

Nope. Three failures is death. It's purposefully meant to be brutal, but my players have always been more on the "oh no, he's at low hp" type, and they're really good at healing the downed players at least a few points before their turn rolls around again. I also don't target downed PCs while there's still conscious foes to attack. It's worked out well for me and mine, though I definitely don't recommend it for everyone.

Given the death rates (you're noticeably more likely to survive), brutal feels like a bit of a stretch! (Especially given the ways around it and the lack of RAW lasting consequences.)

[Segev]

No, it wouldn't help at all in this case. This isn't about whether the monster stops in the middle of a fight to kill them. This is about whether the monster sneers at the defeated foe, dismisses them as a threat, and goes back to looting treasure from a pyramid.

I don't think a monster is more likely to leave something to die rather than take the extra moment to slash its throat open to be sure just because, after the fight is over, the creature might be back up in 1d4 hours. The chance that, in the next 5-6 rounds, the last one you dropped might stand back up is not really a consideration when there's no reason NOT to double-tap just to be sure, even if they won't be up and about for 1d4 hours.

It certainly won't matter that a short rest could heal them some, not to the monsters in question.

Am I misunderstanding what your use case is? Because you mention short rests in your opening post, but "the monster dismisses you as a threat and just keeps looting the pyramid" shouldn't care about whether you can be functional after 1d4 hours plus an hour of short resting, vs. being functional after 1d4 hours plus however long it takes to heal without a short rest's healing.

[MaxWilson]

(A) I don't think a monster is more likely to leave something to die rather than take the extra moment to slash its throat open to be sure just because, after the fight is over, the creature might be back up in 1d4 hours. The chance that, in the next 5-6 rounds, the last one you dropped might stand back up is not really a consideration when there's no reason NOT to double-tap just to be sure, even if they won't be up and about for 1d4 hours.

It certainly won't matter that a short rest could heal them some, not to the monsters in question.

(B) Am I misunderstanding what your use case is? Because you mention short rests in your opening post, but "the monster dismisses you as a threat and just keeps looting the pyramid" shouldn't care about whether you can be functional after 1d4 hours plus an hour of short resting, vs. being functional after 1d4 hours plus however long it takes to heal without a short rest's healing.

(A) I don't know how to say this without repeating myself, but this thread is not about death saves, this is about heavily-wounded enemies. Here's a screenshot of the whiteboard from the last round of yesterday's fight, the one that inspired this thread:

https://i.postimg.cc/ht3bQXPJ/Round4.png

As you can see, there are two conscious-but-wounded PCs (Ikarou 24 HP and Seson 1 HP after a Healer feat pop-up) in pink in the southeast quadrant, facing two monsters. There are two unconscious-or-dying PCs in light pink nearby, and up north there's one almost-dead (1 HP) PC in darker pink and a dying NPC in light pink. There's some dead enemies in light green and six live enemies in aquamarine(?). One of the enemies is heavily wounded (97 damage taken) but regenerates 10 HP/round, so effectively all of the enemies are unwounded.

Their leader was knocked unconscious and taken to safety so they're no longer a cohesive force, plus they're arrogant (especially the big ones--the small ones are arrogant but cowardly).

Because this is a roleplaying game and not a combat wargame, under the circumstances it was reasonable for the bad guys to loot the bodies of the unconscious PCs (gems and magic items), sneer at the unstable 1 HP and 24 HP PCs standing in a magic circle, and ignore them as no longer a threat, especially after the wounded bad guy regenerated all of his health. He walked away and resumed tormenting the human prisoners as they were forced to carry looted gold up to the waiting mammoths for safety. That let the PCs retreat and hide in a Rope Trick for long enough to plan an escape.

This is not about pop-up healing, it's about wounds and in-world expectations for healing rates. (Those expectations turn out to be wrong in this due to Healer feat, but they are close enough that the PCs still weren't in any shape to re-contest the looting after an hour of rest and Healer treatments, unlike PHB short rest healing, which would have let them regain approximately 100% of full health.)

Can you see now that this thread has nothing to do with "taking an extra moment to slash open [a] throat", but does have something to do with whether enemies can be expected to heal to full health in an hour?

(B) Yes, you're misunderstanding the time scale of the conflict. The enemies (Tomb Raiders) need an hour or two to loot the tomb and leave. As long as PCs will be combat-ineffective for at least that long, they don't care what happens to them. Slowing down natural healing means that the PCs can be assumed to require days to heal back up to full strength, so the monsters can individually ignore them as no longer a threat to the operation/no longer as interesting as gold and treasure.

[mr_stibbons]

Given the death rates (you're noticeably more likely to survive), brutal feels like a bit of a stretch! (Especially given the ways around it and the lack of RAW lasting consequences.)

Personally, I'm more of a fan of three saves per long rest/res-even 1-2 levels of exhaustion can be crippling for some characters and campaigns, making it more likely in my mind that the players immediately retreat and long rest rather than go on with only 1-2 saves left. I'd rather be closer to death but still functional than less likely to die but crippled. Also not a fan of needing multiple days to clear exhaustion, and would rather let players get back into the game than be crippled for a week.

On topic, If you want this situation, where the players can walk away heavily wounded (and to be clear, your initial post implied the entire party was unconscious, not partially unconscious and partially heavily wounded) and the monsters can dismiss them as a threat, you could increase the length of rests to get the feel you want without completely removing short rest healing. You don't even need full gritty realism variant, just 2-3 hour short rests would be punishing enough.

[MaxWilson]

On topic, If you want this situation, where the players can walk away heavily wounded (and to be clear, your initial post implied the entire party was unconscious, not partially unconscious and partially heavily wounded) and the monsters can dismiss them as a threat, you could increase the length of rests to get the feel you want without completely removing short rest healing. You don't even need full gritty realism variant, just 2-3 hour short rests would be punishing enough.

You could do that (although I personally don't like the side effects or what it does to gameplay--there are better solutions) and the motivation would be similar: not to punish players but to improve the game's realism, in a way which also sometimes helps the players not die.

[Sorinth]

Slowing down natural healing allows monsters to reasonably write off heavily-wounded PCs as a security threat, and not just unconscious ones. Monsters don't necessarily know if PCs have speed healer traits like Healer or Cure Wounds, but they certainly will know what the normal healing rate is for "any creature" in 5E, per PHB 93: “any creature... can spend Hit Dice during a short rest.”

Therefore, it helps to change the rules so that "any creature" can no longer do so, which changes monster default expectations and BTW allows PCs to be a little more exceptional/surprising.

If in a fight a monster heavily wounds/knocks unconscious several PCs, and leaves them for dead walks off the battlefield victorious it's not going to consider them a security threat regardless of whether they take 1hr to heal up or a day. It already laid one beat down on them, it will likely assume it can do it again if the party comes after it. And that's true regardless of whether it takes the PCs come at it again in a couple hours or a couple days/weeks.

The monster being able to spend HD to recover is precisely why it can feel safe to leave enemies alive because regardless of whether they can speed heal or not, the monster is back at full power so no need to worry. If the monster can't heal then it has to consider whether the PCs can speed heal or not, it would be foolish to assume the PCs can't since it's all risk no reward, whereas the opposite is true if it assumes they can heal. The monster has to assume speed healing and kill it's enemies while it has the upper hand since it won't be at full health if there is a next time.

[MaxWilson]

If in a fight a monster heavily wounds/knocks unconscious several PCs, and leaves them for dead walks off the battlefield victorious it's not going to consider them a security threat regardless of whether they take 1hr to heal up or a day. It already laid one beat down on them, it will likely assume it can do it again if the party comes after it. And that's true regardless of whether it takes the PCs come at it again in a couple hours or a couple days/weeks.

That doesn't sound psychologically correct to me but okay, you roleplay your monsters the way it makes sense to you.

[Segev]

(A) I don't know how to say this without repeating myself, but this thread is not about death saves, this is about heavily-wounded enemies. Here's a screenshot of the whiteboard from the last round of yesterday's fight, the one that inspired this thread:

https://i.postimg.cc/ht3bQXPJ/Round4.png

As you can see, there are two conscious-but-wounded PCs (Ikarou 24 HP and Seson 1 HP after a Healer feat pop-up) in pink in the southeast quadrant, facing two monsters. There are two unconscious-or-dying PCs in light pink nearby, and up north there's one almost-dead (1 HP) PC in darker pink and a dying NPC in light pink. There's some dead enemies in light green and six live enemies in aquamarine(?). One of the enemies is heavily wounded (97 damage taken) but regenerates 10 HP/round, so effectively all of the enemies are unwounded.

Their leader was knocked unconscious and taken to safety so they're no longer a cohesive force, plus they're arrogant (especially the big ones--the small ones are arrogant but cowardly).

Because this is a roleplaying game and not a combat wargame, under the circumstances it was reasonable for the bad guys to loot the bodies of the unconscious PCs (gems and magic items), sneer at the unstable 1 HP and 24 HP PCs standing in a magic circle, and ignore them as no longer a threat, especially after the wounded bad guy regenerated all of his health. He walked away and resumed tormenting the human prisoners as they were forced to carry looted gold up to the waiting mammoths for safety. That let the PCs retreat and hide in a Rope Trick for long enough to plan an escape.

This is not about pop-up healing, it's about wounds and in-world expectations for healing rates. (Those expectations turn out to be wrong in this due to Healer feat, but they are close enough that the PCs still weren't in any shape to re-contest the looting after an hour of rest and Healer treatments, unlike PHB short rest healing, which would have let them regain approximately 100% of full health.)

Can you see now that this thread has nothing to do with "taking an extra moment to slash open [a] throat", but does have something to do with whether enemies can be expected to heal to full health in an hour?

(B) Yes, you're misunderstanding the time scale of the conflict. The enemies (Tomb Raiders) need an hour or two to loot the tomb and leave. As long as PCs will be combat-ineffective for at least that long, they don't care what happens to them. Slowing down natural healing means that the PCs can be assumed to require days to heal back up to full strength, so the monsters can individually ignore them as no longer a threat to the operation/no longer as interesting as gold and treasure.
That does clarify things.

PCs being able to spend HD to heal to "almost full" is not really going to change the equation much; it still takes an hour to make that short rest, and (frankly) if the monsters don't care, double-tapping the downed ones just for spite or "to be sure" isn't out of character at all. If they're making others carry the loot, shoving the unconscious PCs into bags - with or without killing them, but more likely killing them to be sure - and throwing that on the heap their tormented slaves have to haul is less work for them in the time crunch of looting the place.

I am not saying I have an issue with how you ran it; it's perfectly believable and fine. But I don't see that letting the PCs spend HD to short-rest heal would change the monsters' calculus all that much. They can't know for sure the PCs don't have healing potions or a cleric or the like, for instance.

[MaxWilson]

That does clarify things.

PCs being able to spend HD to heal to "almost full" is not really going to change the equation much; it still takes an hour to make that short rest, and (frankly) if the monsters don't care, double-tapping the downed ones just for spite or "to be sure" isn't out of character at all. If they're making others carry the loot, shoving the unconscious PCs into bags - with or without killing them, but more likely killing them to be sure - and throwing that on the heap their tormented slaves have to haul is less work for them in the time crunch of looting the place.

I am not saying I have an issue with how you ran it; it's perfectly believable and fine. But I don't see that letting the PCs spend HD to short-rest heal would change the monsters' calculus all that much. They can't know for sure the PCs don't have healing potions or a cleric or the like, for instance.

In my mind there is a huge difference between "these could be special people who heal quickly" and "everybody routinely heals quickly in this universe." The latter can plausibly be overlooked by arrogant foes (who BTW have just killed who they think was the most important (N)PC, the wise old high-level wizard mentor). The latter demands to be taken into account. If I were running RAW healing I would not have been able to justify not killing all of the PCs.

[Segev]

In my mind there is a huge difference between "these could be special people who heal quickly" and "everybody routinely heals quickly in this universe." The latter can plausibly be overlooked by arrogant foes (who BTW have just killed who they think was the most important (N)PC, the wise old high-level wizard mentor). The latter demands to be taken into account. If I were running RAW healing I would not have been able to justify not killing all of the PCs.

I wouldn't consider having healing potions to be a hallmark of "special people." Not any more than "adventurers who are fighting us over this temple" in the first place.

And again, they planned to be out of there in an hour. And had already won the fight once. Even with short rest healing, the once-defeated party is weakened severely.

I just don't agree that the calculus changes all that much.

[CapnWildefyr]

What? It's the only party worth saving. Ghoul's Head Soup is a fine album meal . Saves money on iron rations as well.

(Two points, and you're a star, if you get the reference without using Google)

I guess I will have to 'roll' in and take the bait. After all, ya gotta get yer ya's ya's out somehow, else there ain't no satisfaction -- or so says Angie.

To MaxWilson's points: Your in-game points make sense to me. No matter what, if you are a villain or the presumptive hero, you make decisions about things like "make sure they're all dead" based on your experiences. In a world where everyone you fight keeps coming back like Freddy or Jason, you will be more assuredly lethal. But in a world where you expect most things you stab to fall down and never get up again, you will expect things to die and you will not go out of your way to make sure they are dead-dead (rather than, you know, just mostly dead). But I think this is a scene-by-scene thing. This time they loot, expecting the players to snuff it. Next time, they will finish them off. In a similar vein, I prefer no 100% healing after a long rest. Same logic, with 100% healing after a long (8hr) rest, then there will never be survivors once fighting starts, because you'll only fight them again tomorrow. Works in Valhalla but not real life. Thus everyone is incentivized to be ruthless. Anything still trying to breathe gets run through.

Edit: To clarify, I would expect that anything in DnD-land that you are fighting has fought before, or runs with creatures that have fought before. With easy healing, everyone would "know" that you have to be sure your opponents are dead unless you do not fear them. I may not as a DM roll death saves for enemy goblins, but that's because as a DM I don't care. "in story" I would expect combatants to have been exposed to quick healing.

[Segev]

I guess I will have to 'roll' in and take the bait. After all, ya gotta get yer ya's ya's out somehow, else there ain't no satisfaction -- or so says Angie.

To MaxWilson's points: Your in-game points make sense to me. No matter what, if you are a villain or the presumptive hero, you make decisions about things like "make sure they're all dead" based on your experiences. In a world where everyone you fight keeps coming back like Freddy or Jason, you will be more assuredly lethal. But in a world where you expect most things you stab to fall down and never get up again, you will expect things to die and you will not go out of your way to make sure they are dead-dead (rather than, you know, just mostly dead). But I think this is a scene-by-scene thing. This time they loot, expecting the players to snuff it. Next time, they will finish them off. In a similar vein, I prefer no 100% healing after a long rest. Same logic, with 100% healing after a long (8hr) rest, then there will never be survivors once fighting starts, because you'll only fight them again tomorrow. Works in Valhalla but not real life. Thus everyone is incentivized to be ruthless. Anything still trying to breathe gets run through.

I honestly don't see why "leave them for dead" rather than "step on their heads to make sure" is so big a decision. Finishing off the downed PCs while you loot them makes more sense than leaving them alive and hoping they bleed out. It's super-low effort to avoid a small probability but high danger risk. And if it's not high danger, it doesn't matter if they'll be back up and running in an hour.

[CapnWildefyr]

I honestly don't see why "leave them for dead" rather than "step on their heads to make sure" is so big a decision. Finishing off the downed PCs while you loot them makes more sense than leaving them alive and hoping they bleed out. It's super-low effort to avoid a small probability but high danger risk. And if it's not high danger, it doesn't matter if they'll be back up and running in an hour.

This is role-playing, but if I see an apparently dead squirrel on the road, I don't try to hit it to be sure it's dead, because it looks dead. The other case is whether someone is still gasping for breath. It's whether or not you look at the dying and say "well, he ain't dead, so I better make sure" vs "no way he makes it, I'm tired, let's go." Depending on the villain, fighting is one thing -- it's you or the other guy. But when the other guy looks to be toast, you maybe don't want to stab him again, if there's no need. Having said that,this isn't a RAW discussion, and I understand both sides and wouldn't complain if it's the other way. In that case I also would never leave anything alive, either, and would fight to the death every time (if I can't run) since there would be no alternative.
EDIT: "This is about how we roleplay the combatants ..."

[MaxWilson]

I wouldn't consider having healing potions to be a hallmark of "special people." Not any more than "adventurers who are fighting us over this temple" in the first place.

And again, they planned to be out of there in an hour. And had already won the fight once. Even with short rest healing, the once-defeated party is weakened severely.

I just don't agree that the calculus changes all that much.

Planned to be out of there in a couple of hours, and had already "won" the fight by the skin of their collective teeth (leader had to be evacuated to safety), but at least they knocked out the main opposing wizard (both sides' major wizards went down almost simultaneously) and made sure to cut off his head and bring it to their (evacuated) leader.

In a world where humans regenerated HP almost as fast as Oni (i.e. RAW healing), letting the other humans live would have been too irresistible for me to justify, even for unsupervised Oni. Like trolls, you have to finish those humans off or they'll grow back. In a world where the PCs can be expected to (and do) just quietly leave afterward and lick their collective wounds, that's not routinely necessary.

FYI:

Korel guzzles healing potions for a while, then sends word back to have the Ko Onis bring him Hawk's head. Once this is done he comes back to the cavern and has them loot the pyramid. Little does he know that Ikarou is still hiding in a Rope Trick with Bohbean, Seson, Urr, and Arabella after finishing off a True Oni and Ko Oni and retrieving Urr's and Arabella's bodies (minus the gold they had been carrying, which had already been taken by the Oni, and Urr's magic sack and flask which were taken by the Ko Oni), and Revivifying Arabella. The human laborers kept silent about what they had seen and Ikarou and company subsequently escaped out the tunnels in the other end. Though some party members were burned severely by a trio of Magma Mephits, they escaped the tomb with the gold on Seson's, Ikarou's, and Bohbean's backs. They watched from afar like fugitives as the human laborers carried tons of gold out of the caves and placed them on mammoth back, and as the Tomb Raiders rode triumphantly away, laden with gold and with Hawk's head stuck on a pennant.

Somewhere along the way Asha caught up with them too. He was close-mouthed about where he'd been, but from the lack of gold or weapons on his body you eventually piece together that he'd fought hard but been knocked out, looted, and left for dead by the Tomb Raiders. His weapons probably now adorn Overwatch's mantle. You wonder what Overwatch's name was but there is no one to ask.

The party has escaped from the tomb with a bunch of gold (which you may keep or convert into XP 1:1) and several magic items. (You may now inquire of the DM what these do and I will reveal what you learn from subsequent experimentation.) On a personal level, it's a success for most of you. For the Veiled Alliance it has been a catastrophic failure, in line with many of their catastrophic failures recently.

Do you report back in and tell Hawk's Alliance contacts them what occurred, or just slink quietly away and let them think it was a total mission kill? It's up to you. Join us next time for further adventures in mystery, roleplay, and combat on Shining Sword Dungeons and Dragons! Thank you for playing!

[Telok]

This is role-playing, but if I see an apparently dead squirrel on the road, I don't try to hit it to be sure it's dead, because it looks dead.

Well be honest, that squirrel didn't have a 1/6 chance of standing back up a dropping a fireball, flamestrike, or dominate person spell on you. If a downed person cast any spells you can't be sure a save-or-die isn't waiting in the wings.

[PhantomSoul]

Well be honest, that squirrel didn't have a 1/6 chance of standing back up a dropping a fireball, flamestrike, or dominate person spell on you. If a downed person cast any spells you can't be sure a save-or-die isn't waiting in the wings.

And if you think they're dead/long-term-downed, it's probably getting Surprise while you're looting, just for added fun!

[MaxWilson]

In a world where everyone you fight keeps coming back like Freddy or Jason, you will be more assuredly lethal. But in a world where you expect most things you stab to fall down and never get up again, you will expect things to die and you will not go out of your way to make sure they are dead-dead (rather than, you know, just mostly dead). But I think this is a scene-by-scene thing. This time they loot, expecting the players to snuff it. Next time, they will finish them off.

Yes, I agree that it's a scene-by-scene thing. If someone suspects that you might be faking death, they are far more likely cut your throat to make sure before starting to loot your body, especially if they fear and respect your power (e.g. they know you are a powerful priest, probably more powerful than they are).


In a similar vein, I prefer no 100% healing after a long rest. Same logic, with 100% healing after a long (8hr) rest, then there will never be survivors once fighting starts, because you'll only fight them again tomorrow. Works in Valhalla but not real life. Thus everyone is incentivized to be ruthless. Anything still trying to breathe gets run through.

Edit: To clarify, I would expect that anything in DnD-land that you are fighting has fought before, or runs with creatures that have fought before. With easy healing, everyone would "know" that you have to be sure your opponents are dead unless you do not fear them. I may not as a DM roll death saves for enemy goblins, but that's because as a DM I don't care. "in story" I would expect combatants to have been exposed to quick healing.

Yeah, me too.


Well be honest, that squirrel didn't have a 1/6 chance of standing back up a dropping a fireball, flamestrike, or dominate person spell on you. If a downed person cast any spells you can't be sure a save-or-die isn't waiting in the wings.

To a certain extent it's reasonable to assume they already showed you their best moves when it was most urgent.

If Bob spent the last two rounds throwing Spiritual Hammer and Sacred Flame at you while you demolished two of their buddies and wounded Bob severely despite his Magic Circle protection, it's arrogant but not irrational to assume that they're not suddenly going to pull out a Power Word: Kill.

[Witty Username]

If I understand MaxWilson's goals correctly, it should serve them as well as anything would. A 50% chance after one round of a level of exhaustion vs. a 5% chance after one round of them popping right back up isn't going to be worth stopping in the middle of a fight to kill them. And each round they stay down, they're more likely to be seriously weakened even if they do wake back up.

You don't even need to especially track "failed death saves," since the exhaustion levels do it for you, and hitting level 6 kills you anyway.

Stick with the 3 successful saves to stabilize, and a nat 20 popping you back up at 1 but without wiping any exhaustion levels, and there's serious consequences for going down, but you don't die until you've failed at least six death saves, and you need long rests to fully recover. Or at least more powerful magic than cure wounds.
That seems worse than slow natural healing.
Exhaustion only goes away with multiple long rests and will be incapacitating very quickly. Slow natural healing has more accessible means to mitigate it (since you can do things like move and use skills without disadvantage), like heal builds or varying tactics to reduce incoming damage.

Notes: I am personally more interested in no healing on long rest, since it makes for more interesting decisions with hit dice, and makes good/bad decision making have longer term consequences (being conservative with your HD gives you more bounce back opportunities, while being reckless will lead to more frequent extended recoveries and reduced staying power.

[KorvinStarmast]

I guess I will have to 'roll' in and take the bait. After all, ya gotta get yer ya's ya's out somehow, else there ain't no satisfaction -- or so says Angie.
And I won't forget to put roses on your grave. :smallsmile:
But the wild horses will probably eat them. :smallcool:

[Telok]

To a certain extent it's reasonable to assume they already showed you their best moves when it was most urgent.

If Bob spent the last two rounds throwing Spiritual Hammer and Sacred Flame at you while you demolished two of their buddies and wounded Bob severely despite his Magic Circle protection, it's arrogant but not irrational to assume that they're not suddenly going to pull out a Power Word: Kill.

But that doesn't really jive with all the "on average the encounter is over in three rounds" stuff that people keep referencing. Unless basically all casters blow their highest level slots 2/3rds of the time every fight and never keep stuff like a backup scroll or two.

Of course my groups never saw any 3 round fights. Probably because they were low level or there was a bruiser on the field with HP good for about five rounds of focus fire. Fireball being so ubiquitous after 5th level and all enemies having ranged attacks probably don't help either. So I'm probably in outlier groups where AoE damage isn't as useful and combat doesn't usually start at under 50 feet.

[Segev]

This is role-playing, but if I see an apparently dead squirrel on the road, I don't try to hit it to be sure it's dead, because it looks dead. The other case is whether someone is still gasping for breath. It's whether or not you look at the dying and say "well, he ain't dead, so I better make sure" vs "no way he makes it, I'm tired, let's go." Depending on the villain, fighting is one thing -- it's you or the other guy. But when the other guy looks to be toast, you maybe don't want to stab him again, if there's no need. Having said that,this isn't a RAW discussion, and I understand both sides and wouldn't complain if it's the other way. In that case I also would never leave anything alive, either, and would fight to the death every time (if I can't run) since there would be no alternative.
EDIT: "This is about how we roleplay the combatants ..."

You're also not stopping to loot the squirrel of its loot, nor hunting and beating it up to the point of incapacitation before leaving it to die slowly on the road.

The monsters in question are already right there on top of the downed and theoretically dying PCs, taking their loot off their bodies. A simple swing or downthrust with a weapon to finish them off is hardly more effort, and ensures that if they're just faking they don't jump up and stab you.

If you could get $50 by drawing a card, but had a chance that you'd be kicked in the shins, but could guarantee the $50 and no shin-kicking if you drew two cards, would you really refrain from drawing two cards? Barring the monsters being merciful creatures who dislike killing, I just don't see "they're no threat" as a reason not to finish them off when you're right there and your expectation is that they'll die anyway, especially since that is your preferred outcome to the point that you'll take no effort to stabilize them. Not when you're already right there, putting in the effort of being close to them and taking things off their not-yet-corpses.

[MoiMagnus]

I don't have that much problems with slow natural healing if you also ban every kind of magical healing too, and that the GM understand that they can't expect players to always be able to chain encounter (and that a set-back at the beginning mean that the following encounters are impossible to win).

I have a lot of problems with slow natural healing if that's just code words for "healers are better not spend any of their spell slots for anything fun because otherwise you won't have enough healing remaining to successfully chain those encounters I've planed".

[MaxWilson]

I don't have that much problems with slow natural healing if you also ban every kind of magical healing too, and that the GM understand that they can't expect players to always be able to chain encounter (and that a set-back at the beginning mean that the following encounters are impossible to win).

I have a lot of problems with slow natural healing if that's just code words for "healers are better not spend any of their spell slots for anything fun because otherwise you won't have enough healing remaining to successfully chain those encounters I've planed".

You do realize that options like Second Wind, Inspiring Leader, and Healer exist, right? Spells are not the only form of extraordinary healing in the game. The important thing psychologically is to nerf the default healing that all creatures get.

Anyway, it's definitely not code for "healers are better not spend any of their spell slots for anything fun because otherwise you won't have enough healing remaining to successfully chain those encounters I've planed".

[Gurgeh]

{Scrubbed} none of your listed options offer anything close to the healing available via dedicated spellcasting or RAW hit die healing.


Second Wind is class-locked and scales very slowly.
Inspiring Leader gives temporary hit points and therefore doesn't stack with a bunch of other useful options, and needs time investment that can be non-trivial in the field to take effect.
Healer's health restoration option is still inferior to hit dice healing and is tied to a physical resource that - while cheap - can't be trivially replenished in the field the way spells or hit dice can.

Not to mention the fact that two of those three are flat-out inaccessible for most characters until you hit level 4 (or even later, if characters engage in early multiclassing).

I don't think your changes are necessarily bad changes, but the only problem they're solving is the one in your own head. If you want your NPCs to be merciless combatants then they will be - if you don't, then they won't.

[MaxWilson]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote} none of your listed options offer anything close to the healing available via dedicated spellcasting or RAW hit die healing.


They don't have to compete directly with dedicated spellcasting (which is so good that healers don't even come close to using up all of their spell slots anyway). They just have to be good enough to cover typical adventuring attrition well enough that players are still having fun without 5 minute workdays. A simple Healer feat, for example, is often good enough; Inspiring Leader is often more than enough. I've seen so many encounters where the only resources "spent" are Inspiring Leader temp HP...

Obviously it's true that dedicated healers can be much better, on the order of 2000+ HP healed per long rest by 10th level, by RAW using only core PHB rules, but it's ridiculous overkill. That much healing is never needed in practice.


I don't think your changes are necessarily bad changes, but the only problem they're solving is the one in your own head. If you want your NPCs to be merciless combatants then they will be - if you don't, then they won't.

Nope, it's in player's heads too. The monsters' actions have to feel plausible to all of us in order for the roleplaying to be fun. See player response from ff7hero in this thread; knowing that the monsters are acting rationally helped him stop feeling like the DM was just going easy on the party, made the game feel more fair.

[Sorinth]

That doesn't sound psychologically correct to me but okay, you roleplay your monsters the way it makes sense to you.

Let me ask it this way then, why is a defeated enemy viewed as a security threat if they can come back in 1-2hrs fully healed but not a security threat if they can only come back in 8hrs fully healed?

That seems inconsequential to determining whether something is a security threat in 99% of cases.

[MaxWilson]

Let me ask it this way then, why is a defeated enemy viewed as a security threat if they can come back in 1-2hrs fully healed but not a security threat if they can only come back in 8hrs fully healed?

Wrong question. I think you mean "not a security threat if they can only come back in roughly 24 hrs fully healed", and the answer is "if you're just here to loot a dungeon and leave, you don't care what happens 22ish hours after you leave."

[Sorinth]

Wrong question. I think you mean "not a security threat if they can only come back in roughly 24 hrs fully healed", and the answer is "if you're just here to loot a dungeon and leave, you don't care what happens 22ish hours after you leave."

Maybe I misunderstood but isn't the situation, the players go into a dungeon and fight a monster, that monster is victorious and the players retreat while badly injured. The monster let's them retreat because it doesn't view them as a security threat.

If that's the case then the monster whose lair the PCs entered won't be gone in 22ish hours so it cares just as much about the players returning in 1hr, 8hrs, 24hrs. It's the players who probably don't care about the monster running away since they will loot the dungeon and never come back.

If it's a wandering monster it comes down to whether the monster believes the players are hunting it or not. If the monster thinks the PCs will hunt it down then the PCs are a security threat because whether it takes 1hr or 1 week to catch up is irrelevant if it's being hunted.

[MaxWilson]

Maybe I misunderstood but isn't the situation, the players go into a dungeon and fight a monster, that monster is victorious and the players retreat while badly injured. The monster let's them retreat because it doesn't view them as a security threat.

No, in that case of the monster is defending its home, it would probably make more sense to finish them off.

In this case the monsters are there to loot the dungeon. PCs got there first but monsters caught up before they could leave. Fight ensues. Monsters win, narrowly but decisively. Monsters kill party's (NPC) Gandalf, who is personal nemesis of monster leader. (I love killing the Gandalf! I honestly didn't think it would happen with this party but it did.) Monster leader is wounded in the process, needs evac. Unsupervised monsters start behaving individualistically, lose military discipline, neglect to finish off wounded PCs partly because they're not much of a threat any more (and partly because they're enough of a threat still to make an individual monster pause first to regenerate and then get distracted by treasure and other stuff).

[Sorinth]

I don't have that much problems with slow natural healing if you also ban every kind of magical healing too, and that the GM understand that they can't expect players to always be able to chain encounter (and that a set-back at the beginning mean that the following encounters are impossible to win).

I have a lot of problems with slow natural healing if that's just code words for "healers are better not spend any of their spell slots for anything fun because otherwise you won't have enough healing remaining to successfully chain those encounters I've planed".

I don't think people who want to move to slow healing necessarily intend to push a party into requiring a dedicated healer but it's often going to be the end result. And I for one certainly don't want to go back to the days where you need a cleric in the party and they spend 90% of their spells on healing. So any changes to stop having hit dice to heal up needs to explain how/why a party won't be "forced" to have a dedicated healer.

[Sorinth]

No, in that case of the monster is defending its home, it would probably make more sense to finish them off.

In this case the monsters are there to loot the dungeon. PCs got there first but monsters caught up before they could leave. Fight ensues. Monsters win, narrowly but decisively. Monsters kill party's (NPC) Gandalf, who is personal nemesis of monster leader. (I love killing the Gandalf! I honestly didn't think it would happen with this party but it did.) Monster leader is wounded in the process, needs evac. Unsupervised monsters start behaving individualistically, lose military discipline, neglect to finish off wounded PCs partly because they're not much of a threat any more (and partly because they're enough of a threat still to make an individual monster pause first to regenerate and then get distracted by treasure and other stuff).

How often is that situation likely to occur? It can happen sure but it's definitely a rare occurrence in the games I've played.

[KorvinStarmast]

If I may inject a point, as a player: in Max's game 1 GP = 1 XP is a convention. Not getting the treasure out of the dungeon, or rather, having our potential XP rifled by other treasure hunters (who presumably also go up in level, off screen, I guess) does harm to the PCs, in world, in that our 'power level' is slowed down such that we have to go off and hunt treasures again or we don't grow (level up).

When they looted the guy who had the bag full of gems, that hurt us to the tune of over 10,000 potential XP lost.

[MaxWilson]

How often is that situation likely to occur? It can happen sure but it's definitely a rare occurrence in the games I've played.

Dynamic enemies (not necessarily that exact situation) are relatively frequent in my world. Bad guys move around and do things. The potential to fight them but be left for dead instead of carefully murdered, if you lose and as long as you haven't annoyed them too much, is relatively common.

Ask yourself "why is this conflict happening?" and at least for me the answer is usually not "because both sides hate each other and want the other guys dead." Conflicts over resources are common, or one side is just in the other's way to achieve a short-term goal like pillaging a village. If raiders pillage a village, do they really care if some of the defenders survive and are healthy again a couple of days later? Not really.

[KorvinStarmast]

If raiders pillage a village, do they really care if some of the defenders survive and are healthy again a couple of days later? Not really. Heck, for the second time in a week I refer to Kurosawa's Seven Samurai. Those raiders delay their raid to make sure the crop is in before their raid on the village to lootpillagerape, and so on. (My other thread was Talakeal's thread about why commoner's don't take care of their werewolf/bandit/goblin problem on their own).

[Sorinth]

Dynamic enemies (not necessarily that exact situation) are relatively frequent in my world. Bad guys move around and do things. The potential to fight them but be left for dead instead of carefully murdered, if you lose and as long as you haven't annoyed them too much, is relatively common.

Ask yourself "why is this conflict happening?" and at least for me the answer is usually not "because both sides hate each other and want the other guys dead." Conflicts over resources are common, or one side is just in the other's way to achieve a short-term goal like pillaging a village. If raiders pillage a village, do they really care if some of the defenders survive and are healthy again a couple of days later? Not really.

Regardless of whether healing takes days or hours the calculation from the raiders is the same, will the villagers organize and pursue them after the raiders leave.

Whether that pursuit happens hours after the raiders leave or days after it doesn't change that calculation. It's not healing fast/slow that determines whether the villagers are a security threat, it's their willingness to pursue the raiders.

[MaxWilson]

Heck, for the second time in a week I refer to Kurosawa's Seven Samurai. Those raiders delay their raid to make sure the crop is in before their raid on the village to lootpillagerape, and so on. (My other thread was Talakeal's thread about why commoner's don't take care of their werewolf/bandit/goblin problem on their own).

You read my mind. I had that movie on my mind when writing that, despite not having ever seen it.


Regardless of whether healing takes days or hours the calculation from the raiders is the same, will the villagers organize and pursue them after the raiders leave.

Whether that pursuit happens hours after the raiders leave or days after it doesn't change that calculation. It's not healing fast/slow that determines whether the villagers are a security threat, it's their willingness to pursue the raiders.

To my mind it does matter whether defenders heal with nigh-trollish speed. An hour is very quick, raiders may still be around.

YMMV apparently.

[KorvinStarmast]

Regardless of whether healing takes days or hours the calculation from the raiders is the same, will the villagers organize and pursue them after the raiders leave. They won't.
They'll go and find some adventurers to do that. Or get some guy like John Wayne, or Yul Brynner ... :smallbiggrin:

[Segev]

Wrong question. I think you mean "not a security threat if they can only come back in roughly 24 hrs fully healed", and the answer is "if you're just here to loot a dungeon and leave, you don't care what happens 22ish hours after you leave."

I still don't understand why the willing-murderous monsters who are spending time over a downed-but-alive enemy who don't care except over their own security don't just finish them off anyway. It's a trivial effort when you're already looting their presumably-insensate bodies.

[MaxWilson]

I still don't understand why the willing-murderous monsters who are spending time over a downed-but-alive enemy who don't care except over their own security don't just finish them off anyway. It's a trivial effort when you're already looting their presumably-insensate bodies.

One factor here might be that I use negative HP instead of death saves, so it's not just "stab them twice with a dagger and now they're dead." Another is the fact that there's other heavily-wounded-but-alive enemies sitting inside a Magic Circle nearby and you're a regenerating but currently wounded monster in a sort of uneasy truce with the conscious enemies--you aren't Fireballing them and they aren't attacking you--and you're maybe 75% sure that if the fight actively resumes you'll win, but why not just loot the bodies and walk away instead? A small chance of getting dead is still a small chance of getting dead. And once you loot the bodies and have healed (a minute or so later), you're now 100% certain you could kill them all, but now it's no longer a trivial effort to finish them off.

Also, I again mention that not finishing off downed enemies is COMMON behavior for player characters IME. Try asking a group of players sometime after a battle, "This is a roleplaying question not a trick question: do you cut all the downed enemies throats just to make sure they're dead? I guarantee you none of them will be combat-effective for several days if you spare their lives."

You'll get some players who kill them, some who leave them for dead, and some who bring them along with the party as prisoners and try to brainwash them into learning magic and becoming the PC's Sith Apprentice, so to speak (true story). But it won't be 100% in favor of killing them.

[Segev]

One factor here might be that I use negative HP instead of death saves, so it's not just "stab them twice with a dagger and now they're dead." Another is the fact that there's other heavily-wounded-but-alive enemies sitting inside a Magic Circle nearby and you're a regenerating but currently wounded monster in a sort of uneasy truce with the conscious enemies--you aren't Fireballing them and they aren't attacking you--and you're maybe 75% sure that if the fight actively resumes you'll win, but why not just loot the bodies and walk away instead? A small chance of getting dead is still a small chance of getting dead. And once you loot the bodies and have healed (a minute or so later), you're now 100% certain you could kill them all, but now it's no longer a trivial effort to finish them off.

When your timescale for healing is 1 minute and the enemies' is 1 hour, stalling for that minute to finish them off is reasonable. Especially since looting bodies takes at least a minute. Maybe you, knowing your players better than the monsters know their characters, knew you could get away with looting the downed PCs' bodies without lethal retaliation but not with killing the downed PCs without the party engaging in a likely-losing battle that'd result in a TPK to try to punish/prevent it, but why would murderous monsters know that? Heck, I know parties of players who WOULD react with equal lethal force, against equally deadly odds, to having their tens of thousands of gp of loot stolen as they would to their companions slain.

Both ways, really: some who would lament and moan that their friends died but not throw their own lives away in a futile effort to try to save them, and others who'd try their darndest to take down the monsters with them for daring to touch the party's loot, and risk the almost-certain TPK for the slim chance at glorious victory and the spite for preventing the monsters from taking their stuff.

[Sorinth]

To my mind it does matter whether defenders heal with nigh-trollish speed. An hour is very quick, raiders may still be around.

YMMV apparently.

If the raiders are still around then people aren't likely to be taking a short rest. Also if the raiders have looted the PCs, even if they heal up what are they doing for armour, weapons, arcane focuses, etc...

The idea that a village which the PCs are staying in gets raided, the PCs are defeated and looted and left for dead, but the second the last raider is out of sight the PCs immediately start a short rest and the second it's over they immediately follow the raiders and attack as soon as they catch up seems like an absurd situation.

If you leave someone for dead and they are going to pursue you after they've healed up, then they are a threat whether they healed in an hour or 24. You disagree, so tell me where is the line for when they go from not being a threat to being a threat. Is it 1hr or less, is 5hrs, is 12?

[MaxWilson]

When your timescale for healing is 1 minute and the enemies' is 1 hour, stalling for that minute to finish them off is reasonable. Especially since looting bodies takes at least a minute.

Sure, it could be reasonable. Hence my slowing down time scales for healing, so that it's more like 1 minute vs 24 hours.

(I don't agree on it taking a minute to loot a body but that's a side issue.)


Maybe you, knowing your players better than the monsters know their characters, knew you could get away with looting the downed PCs' bodies without lethal retaliation but not with killing the downed PCs without the party engaging in a likely-losing battle that'd result in a TPK to try to punish/prevent it, but why would murderous monsters know that? Heck, I know parties of players who WOULD react with equal lethal force, against equally deadly odds, to having their tens of thousands of gp of loot stolen as they would to their companions slain.

Both ways, really: some who would lament and moan that their friends died but not throw their own lives away in a futile effort to try to save them, and others who'd try their darndest to take down the monsters with them for daring to touch the party's loot, and risk the almost-certain TPK for the slim chance at glorious victory and the spite for preventing the monsters from taking their stuff.

At this point I don't understand the argument you're making--apparently you're saying that uneasy truces are less rational than pitched warfare?

When offered a choice between this narration wherein the monsters looted their friends' unconscious bodies and left them for dead but the party ultimately survived, vs. breaking the uneasy truce and resuming the fight, the players opted to take the narrated ending. I can't figure out if you're claiming that the monster behavior was unreasonable and unrealistic, or the player behavior was unreasonable and unrealistic, but as it happened, neither side resumed the fight before looting was complete, and then the monster(s) didn't care enough to go back and finish off the wounded PCs off. (And their leadership wasn't around to make them do so.)

If you think players would never do that, I don't know what to tell you except that they do and they did.


The idea that a village which the PCs are staying in gets raided, the PCs are defeated and some are even looted and left for dead, but the second the last raider is out of sight while the raiders are busy rounding up livestock and valuables the PCs immediately start a short rest and the second it's over they immediately follow the raiders and attack as soon as they catch up subsequently counterattack seems like an absurd situation.

I've edited the above to more accurately reflect my actual views. A counterattack doesn't seem absurd. Is this just a disagreement over how long it takes to pillage?

[Segev]

Sure, it could be reasonable. Hence my slowing down time scales for healing, so that it's more like 1 minute vs 24 hours.

(I don't agree on it taking a minute to loot a body but that's a side issue.)My point is that even with the 24 hour timescale, it makes more sense to kill them than to leave them alive when the amount of effort is trivial and the risk that they might hunt them down - while they're burdened with all that tasty loot - to get that loot back is real. Sure, 24 hours is longer, so maybe it's harder to chase the monsters down, but it's not impossible, and killing these downed guys you're actively stripping is genuinely trivial.


At this point I don't understand the argument you're making--apparently you're saying that uneasy truces are less rational than pitched warfare?

When offered a choice between this narration wherein the monsters looted their friends' unconscious bodies and left them for dead but the party ultimately survived, vs. breaking the uneasy truce and resuming the fight, the players opted to take the narrated ending. I can't figure out if you're claiming that the monster behavior was unreasonable and unrealistic, or the player behavior was unreasonable and unrealistic, but as it happened, neither side resumed the fight before looting was complete, and then the monster(s) didn't care enough to go back and finish off the wounded PCs off. (And their leadership wasn't around to make them do so.)

If you think players would never do that, I don't know what to tell you except that they do and they did.
Yes, I am saying that this "uneasy truce" makes no more sense with the longer healing time you have implemented than it does with the 5e standard healing time. That's my entire issue with it. In the scenario you described, there is no reason monsters should spare the downed-and-possibly-dying PCs. You yourself phrased it as, I believe, them "not being worth the time" or something like that, but it really isn't that hard. It's a cut-scene death. Unless the negative hp rules you're using are such that monsters would have to beat and beat and beat on the helpless not-quite-corpses before they finally give up the ghost (which really breaks my verisimilitude unless they have some supernal magical or superman-like ultra-passive defenses), "the monster slits their throats (or crushes their heads, or whatever) as it loots their bodies" seems entirely realistic and no more effort than getting that last gold ring off the body's finger.



Thing is, I came into this thread expecting to see something I could agree with, because I have used a similar bit of logic in a different game. It was BESM, and I won't belabor the details of the mechanics, but one of the semi-optional (in that most games I've seen rule it away) rules is a massive damage rule that forces you to roll to resist being knocked unconscious if you take over a certain threshold of damage in one blow, regardless of how many hp you have left. In one game, where the PCs were high schoolers, I actively called out that this rule was in effect, because in a high school fist fight, beating somebody until they drop but not bothering to finish them off is very much "a thing." By having characters drop long before their HP are expended, it left lethality an option should it be important (and, in this game, it would eventually be so), but for non-lethal fights it made a good stopping point that naturally spared the lives of the participants without making any players have to make judgment calls about when their PC gives up.

The reason I'm arguing with you about your thesis here is that it just doesn't seem realistic to me that "24 hours" vs. "1 hour" would make any difference at all to the monsters' willingness to finish off the PCs, especially when you frame them scoffing and leaving them without killing them as "leaving them for dead" because they're "no threat."

[Telok]

Also, I again mention that not finishing off downed enemies is COMMON behavior for player characters IME. Try asking a group of players sometime after a battle, "This is a roleplaying question not a trick question: do you cut all the downed enemies throats just to make sure they're dead? I guarantee you none of them will be combat-effective for several days if you spare their lives."

You'll get some players who kill them, some who leave them for dead,

Every group I've seen in 20 years is 100% kill-happy. It shocked peoplfe when a character of mine took a prisoner once. Of course they're also quite vengful, simple rudeness will have them plotting to kill a town mayor and her entire family. They'd totally heal asap and hunt down the loot, fireballing the prisoners and making sure to kill the mammoth to ensure the oni couldn't escape with the treasure. They'd TPK before giving up on that loot, even without gp=xp.

[MaxWilson]

My point is that even with the 24 hour timescale, it makes more sense to kill them than to leave them alive when the amount of effort is trivial and the risk that they might hunt them down - while they're burdened with all that tasty loot - to get that loot back is real. Sure, 24 hours is longer, so maybe it's harder to chase the monsters down, but it's not impossible, and killing these downed guys you're actively stripping is genuinely trivial.

Yes, I am saying that this "uneasy truce" makes no more sense with the longer healing time you have implemented than it does with the 5e standard healing time. That's my entire issue with it. In the scenario you described, there is no reason monsters should spare the downed-and-possibly-dying PCs. You yourself phrased it as, I believe, them "not being worth the time" or something like that, but it really isn't that hard. It's a cut-scene death. Unless the negative hp rules you're using are such that monsters would have to beat and beat and beat on the helpless not-quite-corpses before they finally give up the ghost (which really breaks my verisimilitude unless they have some supernal magical or superman-like ultra-passive defenses), "the monster slits their throats (or crushes their heads, or whatever) as it loots their bodies" seems entirely realistic and no more effort than getting that last gold ring off the body's finger.

"Genuinely trivial?"

If you want to, I will gladly let you run the Oni (by himself--you can't rely on the Ko Oni to help) in that scenario while I run the PCs. I bet I kill you at least 10% of the time, probably more like 25%--and from an in-character perspective you won't know for sure that the odds aren't even greater.

Later on once the Oni heals, the danger is less but the effort is greater, since you'd have to walk back and find the PCs (who have already hidden in a Rope Trick), maybe talk to other Oni to organize a search, tell your boss that some of them got away, etc. It's non-trivial in a different way.

But if you think the uneasy truce makes no sense I'm happy to game it out with you. If I beat you 1 time in 4, would you give me $1000? Or would you walk away from the offer because even though you're pretty sure of your argument, it's not worth the risk that you might be slightly wrong?

BTW one of the two unconscious PCs is dead already (later Revivified but you won't know that in-character); the other is down but stable, would take about 50 HP of additional damage to kill for sure.

[Dork_Forge]

"Genuinely trivial?"

If you want to, I will gladly let you run the Oni (by himself--you can't rely on the Ko Oni to help) in that scenario while I run the PCs. I bet I kill you at least 10% of the time, probably more like 25%--and from an in-character perspective you won't know for sure that the odds aren't even greater.

Later on once the Oni heals, the danger is less but the effort is greater, since you'd have to walk back and find the PCs (who have already hidden in a Rope Trick), maybe talk to other Oni to organize a search, tell your boss that some of them got away, etc. It's non-trivial in a different way.

But if you think the uneasy truce makes no sense I'm happy to game it out with you. If I beat you 1 time in 4, would you give me $1000? Or would you walk away from the offer because even though you're pretty sure of your argument, it's not worth the risk that you might be slightly wrong?

BTW one of the two unconscious PCs is dead already (later Revivified but you won't know that in-character); the other is down but stable, would take about 50 HP of additional damage to kill for sure.

For context here, as a player I was very confident with the prospect of beating the two in front of the cave, focus fire on the Oni is pretty likely to take them down and the Ko Oni isn't likely to drop both of us at all.

For thread consideration about this though, your WEGO initiative is a substantial change to combat that I think most folks here wouldn't be aware of/consider.

[MaxWilson]

For context here, as a player I was very confident with the prospect of beating the two in front of the cave, focus fire on the Oni is pretty likely to take them down and the Ko Oni isn't likely to drop both of us at all.

For thread consideration about this though, your WEGO initiative is a substantial change to combat that I think most folks here wouldn't be aware of/consider.

Yeah, WEGO is good at supporting uneasy truces, standoffs, and other pauses during combat because Delaying doesn't give the enemy "free actions" like skipping a turn outright would. That's one of about a dozen reasons I like WEGO.

For the record I am glad that we never had to find out whether Ikarou and Seson were tougher than the Oni at that point or not. Walking away benefitted both sides more than fighting to the death.

[Sorinth]

I've edited the above to more accurately reflect my actual views. A counterattack doesn't seem absurd. Is this just a disagreement over how long it takes to pillage?

So they are taking a short rest inside the village while the village is still being looted? That seems dubious.


And again there's the problem of these PCs were just defeated. Even if they get a SR they won't have recovered any LR abilities and some of them don't even have equipment anymore since they were looted. If they start another fight right away there's no reason to think they would be successful, or for the players to believe they would be successful.

[MaxWilson]

So they are taking a short rest inside the village while the village is still being looted? That seems dubious.

Hiding in an cellar or corn field (or in a Rope Trick) for an hour strikes you as infeasible? Well, maybe that's where we disagree then.


And again there's the problem of these PCs were just defeated. Even if they get a SR they won't have recovered any LR abilities and some of them don't even have equipment anymore since they were looted. If they start another fight right away there's no reason to think they would be successful, or for the players to believe they would be successful.

And the bandits care what the players think, why? In a world where rapid healing recovery is routine for everyone and everything, you don't say, "Oh, those guys probably don't have any more weapons. They'd have to fight us barehanded, so let's leave them alone." Instead you say, "Let's make sure someone goes around and cuts all their throats so they don't recover and jump us while we're busy pillaging."

[Segev]

"Genuinely trivial?"

If you want to, I will gladly let you run the Oni (by himself--you can't rely on the Ko Oni to help) in that scenario while I run the PCs. I bet I kill you at least 10% of the time, probably more like 25%--and from an in-character perspective you won't know for sure that the odds aren't even greater.

Later on once the Oni heals, the danger is less but the effort is greater, since you'd have to walk back and find the PCs (who have already hidden in a Rope Trick), maybe talk to other Oni to organize a search, tell your boss that some of them got away, etc. It's non-trivial in a different way.

But if you think the uneasy truce makes no sense I'm happy to game it out with you. If I beat you 1 time in 4, would you give me $1000? Or would you walk away from the offer because even though you're pretty sure of your argument, it's not worth the risk that you might be slightly wrong?

BTW one of the two unconscious PCs is dead already (later Revivified but you won't know that in-character); the other is down but stable, would take about 50 HP of additional damage to kill for sure.

No, I wouldn't take that bet, but that's because I don't bet unless I was willing to count the money as 100% lost - i.e., I only do it if the entertainment value of the "bet" is such that I would spend the money even with no promise of return.

Moreover, you've hit on something that I mentioned, but you either missed or at least didn't acknowledge: apparently, it takes 50 hp of damage to kill a downed, helpless PC in your game. So yes, you're telling me that an oni could spend multiple rounds hammering a helpless, ragdoll body that is already physically damaged enough that its owner can't move, and not kill it in your system.

That, right there, stretches my verisimilitude far beyond anything you've suggested. There's room to argue about whether paralyzed victims should be able to take that much of a beating when at POSITIVE hp. Your rule change to negative hp makes these PCs either super-special (and the oni know it), or makes all creatures in your world ludicrously hard to kill.

This also tells me that your PCs were in a position to demand the oni NOT take the loot, because they could have forced the issue, and, by your estimation, they had a high probability of winning. High enough that it certainly isn't worth the oni risking their lives for the loot the PCs are in range to immediately protect.

[MaxWilson]

No, I wouldn't take that bet, but (B) that's because I don't bet unless I was willing to count the money as 100% lost - i.e., I only do it if the entertainment value of the "bet" is such that I would spend the money even with no promise of return.

(A) Moreover, you've hit on something that I mentioned, but you either missed or at least didn't acknowledge: apparently, it takes 50 hp of damage to kill a downed, helpless PC in your game. (C) So yes, you're telling me that an oni could spend multiple rounds hammering a helpless, ragdoll body that is already physically damaged enough that its owner can't move, and not kill it in your system.

That, right there, stretches my verisimilitude far beyond anything you've suggested. There's room to argue about whether paralyzed victims should be able to take that much of a beating when at POSITIVE hp. (D) Your rule change to negative hp makes these PCs either super-special (and the oni know it), or makes all creatures in your world ludicrously hard to kill.

This also tells me that your PCs were in a position to demand the oni NOT take the loot, because they could have forced the issue, and, (E) by your estimation, they had a high probability of winning. High enough that it certainly isn't worth the oni risking their lives for the loot the PCs are in range to immediately protect.

(A) I'm pretty sure this counts as an acknowledgement:


One factor here might be that I use negative HP instead of death saves, so it's not just "stab them twice with a dagger and now they're dead."

I'm sorry you overlooked it but that isn't my fault.

(B) Exactly. And if you're not even willing to risk money, how willing are you to risk your life? Walking away from conditions of uncertainty makes perfect sense.

(C) Do the math. With auto crits and target Dex at zero (therefore AC 10), it's about one round of full effort (two hits with its halberd). The scenario you're imagining of "multiple rounds hammering" would happen only if the Oni rolled low on its damage rolls (hitting non-vital organs?) or rolled natural 1s and 2s and missed the unconscious body entirely. It's unlikely, and when it does happen it's as plausible as other unlikely things that occasionally happen in 5E, and far more plausible than recovering from mortal wounds at RAW speed.

(D) On the contrary, if the Oni doesn't know the dying PC is special, it gives him even more reason not to whack him with its halberd because he might already be dead.

(E) This is frustrating because it's the second time in this post I've had to point out that you're claiming I said the exact opposite of what I actually wrote. Since when is a 10% to 25% chance of the Oni dying a "by [Max's] estimation, a high probability of [PC's] winning"? The Oni, like you, thought it was more likely than not to win, but the risk (10%+ chance of death?) and uncertainty (what doesn't it know?) made it unwilling to risk death, just as you are unwilling to risk $1000 backing up an Internet opinion. Risk: high. Reward: low. What's wrong with walking away?

As for whether the PCs could have bluffed the Oni into backing down, I guess we'll never know because they didn't try. I think you'd have to be careful in your approach, because you need to do it in a way which causes the (arrogant) monster not to feel bad/lose face if it does back down. As a player you'd be welcome to try and I would roleplay the monster as faithfully as I can, but what you're suggesting is easier said than done.

[KorvinStarmast]

This also tells me that your PCs were in a position to demand the oni NOT take the loot, because they could have forced the issue, and, by your estimation, they had a high probability of winning. High enough that it certainly isn't worth the oni risking their lives for the loot the PCs are in range to immediately protect. The Oni were regenerating HP; not sure if we knew that in world (I think a lore check had revealed that) but that was evident OOC.

My character's concern was get all PCs, those upright and those not up right, into the rope trick hole. I had to burn spell points (the Oni didn't necessarily know that) to revivify our monk. The issue was in doubt on both sides and it appeared that once we knocked their wizard out of the fight, the Oni were very much "I am in it for me" and they changed their modus operandi - while the enemy wizard was up, he was very much directing their efforts. (We had an inkling about their selfish nature due to a couple of lore checks from our wizard who was familiar with Oni from a previous run in).

Again, this was an in-world RP decision: do what is needful to get the party up into the hole and recover. With one dead and one dying right in front of me, my cleric's priorities changed.

[Zalabim]

So in the first clash, the Oni's side 'killed' about half of the PCs. If those that remain can get to full hp, and spending all your HD averages about 90% of full HP, the PCs forces are hardly back at full strength. The Oni's leader would likewise be back at similar strength, if it's for some reason not a regenerator like the Onis. The Revivify was probably not within the 1 minute time limit without a functionally immediate truce. I can chalk that up as another effect of house rules, and wouldn't have been a factor the Onis are likely to consider. I don't see anything about the Oni's logic that would be changed by normal short rest healing. On the player side, it means that losing in one fight ended the adventure. Which is also normal for parties doing the five minute workday mentality.

I was really looking at this thread for a discussion of the "Slow Natural Healing" and other variant healing rules. For example, requiring healing kits to use HD on a short rest takes away the option for KO'd characters to spend hit dice after a 1 hour "short rest while stably unconscious." Unless someone is available to treat them, they have to wake up on their own before they can start to recover more HP. The slow natural healing rule doesn't reduce the amount of healing available in one adventure day, but extends the post adventure recovery from 2-3 days to usually 5 days without magical healing. Casting cure spells on an official downtime day is much less of a burden on healing-capable spellcasters. Etc.


(C) Do the math. With auto crits and target Dex at zero (therefore AC 10), it's about one round of full effort (two hits with its halberd). The scenario you're imagining of "multiple rounds hammering" would happen only if the Oni rolled low on its damage rolls (hitting non-vital organs?) or rolled natural 1s and 2s and missed the unconscious body entirely. It's unlikely, and when it does happen it's as plausible as other unlikely things that occasionally happen in 5E, and far more plausible than recovering from mortal wounds at RAW speed.
Because I do like to do the math, and because I think we did not know in this thread that the target's AC was 10 until now (which is, well, no wonder they're down): https://anydice.com/program/237da Go ahead and try to hit with both attacks and deal at least 50 damage. It is, at a minimum, a case of the executioner taking two swings. If we were talking about a character in heavy armor with AC 16 or higher, just hitting wouldn't be guaranteed. With normal dying rules, it wouldn't take a full round of action from one of the strongest enemies on the field to have a better than even chance (42.8 live to 57.2 die) of killing an already downed character. One of the medium sized enemies could have done it. That is a bigger change to "do I finish them off" than any change to the spending of Hit Dice.

[micahaphone]

I thought that generally adventurers and magic casters are rare and exceptional in the world - most highway bandits are used to preying on commoners and basic guards, npcs that usually don't roll death saves and certainly don't have access to revivify. Even if they have a spellcaster amongst them, a 300 gp diamond isn't carry around pocket change unless you're an adventurer. Most people don't have the heroic (or villainous) fortitude for death saving throws, they just get death.

[MaxWilson]

Because I do like to do the math, and because I think we did not know in this thread that the target's AC was 10 until now (which is, well, no wonder they're down): https://anydice.com/program/237da Go ahead and try to hit with both attacks and deal at least 50 damage. It is, at a minimum, a case of the executioner taking two swings. If we were talking about a character in heavy armor with AC 16 or higher, just hitting wouldn't be guaranteed. With normal dying rules, it wouldn't take a full round of action from one of the strongest enemies on the field to have a better than even chance (42.8 live to 57.2 die) of killing an already downed character. One of the medium sized enemies could have done it. That is a bigger change to "do I finish them off" than any change to the spending of Hit Dice.

Target's normal AC is 20 (13+2 from Unarmored Defense + shield, then +5 from Dex) but when unconscious that Dex 20 becomes Dex 0 for a - 5 penalty (house rules on Dex for unconscious / paralyzed creatures).

I'm not sure what your point is but it seems different than Segev's argument that uneasy truces are implausible. I'm happy to talk in more detail but I'd like a clear statement of what you're trying to say first so that I can potentially just save time by saying, "Yes, I agree with that."

[CapnWildefyr]

I thought that generally adventurers and magic casters are rare and exceptional in the world - most highway bandits are used to preying on commoners and basic guards, npcs that usually don't roll death saves and certainly don't have access to revivify. Even if they have a spellcaster amongst them, a 300 gp diamond isn't carry around pocket change unless you're an adventurer. Most people don't have the heroic (or villainous) fortitude for death saving throws, they just get death.

Not sure I'm following your logic here. Just because we don't want to roll death saves for every npc doesn't mean that -- in world -- they wouldn't "have" them. In character, either it's really hard to kill things and have them stay "dead" (they get death saves), or not (no death saves). Put another way, just because no DM bothers rolling death saves for every npc doesn't mean that we couldn't. In world, in character, the DM makes decisions based on what the npc's/monsters think. (Having said that, low-threat creatures can snuff it easily, since when you only have 5 hp, an 11 hp sword thrust snuffs you out in one shot.)

Now, as for access to healing and all that, yep.

[Zalabim]

Target's normal AC is 20 (13+2 from Unarmored Defense + shield, then +5 from Dex) but when unconscious that Dex 20 becomes Dex 0 for a - 5 penalty (house rules on Dex for unconscious / paralyzed creatures).

I'm not sure what your point is but it seems different than Segev's argument that uneasy truces are implausible. I'm happy to talk in more detail but I'd like a clear statement of what you're trying to say first so that I can potentially just save time by saying, "Yes, I agree with that."

On the one hand, there's cranking up the guillotine to deliver an execution. On the other hand, there's a death by goblin with a belt-cutting-knife panic-stabbing someone when one of the "corpses" twitches while he's trying to remove a coin purse. Your attempt to pat yourself on the back for your weird, un-genre-representative houserules is overshadowed by the presence of your other weird, un-genre-representative houserules. Why my monsters left my PCs alive can easily be answered by "it's really hard for my monsters to kill my PCs." In the simplest terms: After considering the evidence, I have to give a Hard Disagree to your opening statement.

[MaxWilson]

On the one hand, there's cranking up the guillotine to deliver an execution. On the other hand, there's a death by goblin with a belt-cutting-knife panic-stabbing someone when one of the "corpses" twitches while he's trying to remove a coin purse. Your attempt to pat yourself on the back for your weird, un-genre-representative houserules is overshadowed by the presence of your other weird, un-genre-representative houserules. Why my monsters left my PCs alive can easily be answered by "it's really hard for my monsters to kill my PCs." In the simplest terms: After considering the evidence, I have to give a Hard Disagree to your opening statement.

Huh. I don't understand why you sound so... disgusted? angry? but okay then, we disagree.

[Segev]

(A) I'm pretty sure this counts as an acknowledgement:



I'm sorry you overlooked it but that isn't my fault.It kind-of defeats the point that slowing natural healing by removing short rest hit die expenditure is what made things work out the way you're outlining. You have a pile of house rules here, and I don't find the short rest healing being removed to be a contributing factor in a realistic sense to the "mercy" shown your PCs, here.


(B) Exactly. And if you're not even willing to risk money, how willing are you to risk your life? Walking away from conditions of uncertainty makes perfect sense.Then they shouldn't have stayed to loot the bodies, either, because, while I may have gotten exactly backwards whose odds you were listing, this...


(C) Do the math. With auto crits and target Dex at zero (therefore AC 10), it's about one round of full effort (two hits with its halberd). The scenario you're imagining of "multiple rounds hammering" would happen only if the Oni rolled low on its damage rolls (hitting non-vital organs?) or rolled natural 1s and 2s and missed the unconscious body entirely. It's unlikely, and when it does happen it's as plausible as other unlikely things that occasionally happen in 5E, and far more plausible than recovering from mortal wounds at RAW speed.
...means that the Oni still thought there was a 10-25% chance they'd die if they fought. Which means that the mere threat of the PCs jumping them while they're looting the PCs' buddies bodies should have been enough that their immediate reaction was to retreat without looting.

That they took the time to loot but not the time to slash twice with their halberds - as you suggest is what it would have taken to kill the helpless and near-dead PCs - but did take the time to loot the bodies (which certainly took about as long as the two hits would have), just doesn't seem like it actually is very realistic.

I get that it was to you. It isn't to me, and I wouldn't expect other DMs to use the same calculus you did whereby slower healing for the PCs means that it's truly enough less of a risk that staying, taunting the PCs but not killing their friends even as you loot them, etc., is a good idea.


(D) On the contrary, if the Oni doesn't know the dying PC is special, it gives him even more reason not to whack him with its halberd because he might already be dead.Not really. Double-tap, just to be sure. Hardly takes much more effort if you only need to do it once, as they must believe it would if they don't believe the PCs to be special.



As for whether the PCs could have bluffed the Oni into backing down, I guess we'll never know because they didn't try. I think you'd have to be careful in your approach, because you need to do it in a way which causes the (arrogant) monster not to feel bad/lose face if it does back down. As a player you'd be welcome to try and I would roleplay the monster as faithfully as I can, but what you're suggesting is easier said than done.Who needs to bluff? You've estimated at least a 1 in 10 chance the oni would die if the PCs tried to fight it. It was willing to stop fighting on those odds. It was willing, according to you, to leave the PCs alive, though, only because they would take more than an hour to heal up.

Again, I just don't see your thesis about the slow healing being a factor in anything other than your personal calculus bearing much water. I, in fact, do not agree with how you ran it, and, as a DM, would have run it differently because I wouldn't see the oni behaving that way to be believable.

I would have had to bend over backwards, given what you've outlined about the scenario, for the oni to both loot the bodies and NOT finish them off. Either he's worried that the still-conscious PCs will jump him and manage that 1 in 10 chance of killing him, in which case he doesn't stay to loot the bodies and goad them into trying, or he counts on the 9-in-10 chance that he'll kill them if they try anything and offs their buddies in front of them to ensure that there's no way any of them are faking dead and ready to surprise him by changing the 90% victory odds he believes he has to something notably less.


The Oni were regenerating HP; not sure if we knew that in world (I think a lore check had revealed that) but that was evident OOC.

My character's concern was get all PCs, those upright and those not up right, into the rope trick hole. I had to burn spell points (the Oni didn't necessarily know that) to revivify our monk. The issue was in doubt on both sides and it appeared that once we knocked their wizard out of the fight, the Oni were very much "I am in it for me" and they changed their modus operandi - while the enemy wizard was up, he was very much directing their efforts. (We had an inkling about their selfish nature due to a couple of lore checks from our wizard who was familiar with Oni from a previous run in).

Again, this was an in-world RP decision: do what is needful to get the party up into the hole and recover. With one dead and one dying right in front of me, my cleric's priorities changed.All I'm saying is that I don't find the onis' behavior very believable, and it feels like the DM knew he'd won the fight and was deliberately looking for an excuse to avoid killing PCs, but wanted to make sure the loss was consequential and felt so the players didn't get out of a loss "free."

The slower natural healing being good for players is just not borne out here, to me. It sounds like the DM is glad he had a reason not to kill the PCs, but that the slower natural healing is only a factor because it was part of the justification he constructed. I do not find the justification to be convincing. I am not Max, and if he says that's not what he was thinking, I can't prove he's wrong. I trust that he believes his decisions were made as he outlines them, because I think he's an honest person. But I do not believe it to be what "the typical DM" would have as their thought process, and therefore I do not believe that his thesis that slower healing is good for PCs is generally true, or even true necessarily anywhere but at his game tables with him running the game.

Max, I respect your thoughts and opinions a lot, but I do not agree with you here. Nothing in this scenario supports your thesis in a general sense that doesn't include you as the DM. At best, you've shown that a slower natural healing rate is good for players when you are DMing, because you believe that the needle is threaded at the threshold you ran this scenario.

I do not, and don't think most DMs would agree in actual practice. I think most DMs who would have run it similarly to how you did would have done so in standard 5e, as well, because their motive would be to spare the PCs. I think most DMs who would have run it more viciously would have done so regardless of the slow or fast natural healing rate, as well, because they would have thought sparing the dying PCs a pointless show of mercy at too great a risk of there being a party that could come after them in some amount of time that is insufficient to get wholly back to their stronghold and/or disappear entirely.

[MaxWilson]

That they took the time to loot but not the time to slash twice with their halberds - as you suggest is what it would have taken to kill the helpless and near-dead PCs - but did take the time to loot the bodies (which certainly took about as long as the two hits would have), just doesn't seem like it actually is very realistic.

Ah, so you're thinking in the 5E ruleset and not in purely RP terms.

I didn't want to make this a thread about WEGO initiative but yes, RAW cyclic initiative does tend to discourage uneasy truces, as Dork_Forge pointed out. I certainly never claimed that abolishing short rest healing is the ONLY thing you need to make the game less artificially murderous. My point in making this thread was just to point out specifically that without getting rid of ultra-healing-for-everybody, I would have had to had the enemy fight until the party was TPKed, which I didn't want to do. Slower healing isn't necessarily the DM out to get you, sometimes it's the DM looking ahead with foresight so that he won't have to kill you when these kinds of situations turn up.

But I did not intend to claim and do not claim that short rest healing is the only thing that pushes 5E towards murderism. Honestly, switching IGOUGO round robin initiative to WEGO initiative probably has an even bigger impact.


Who needs to bluff? You've estimated at least a 1 in 10 chance the oni would die if the PCs tried to fight it. It was willing to stop fighting on those odds. It was willing, according to you, to leave the PCs alive, though, only because they would take more than an hour to heal up.

Wait, so there's a 90% chance the PCs will die vs. a 10% chance the Oni would die, and all that's at stake is treasure, and you think that's not a bluff on the PCs' part? You think they're more than 9x as willing as the Oni to risk death? How desperate for treasure do you think these PCs are?

Sorry, no. That's a bluff unless the PCs are utterly psychotic.


it feels like the DM knew he'd won the fight and was deliberately looking for an excuse to avoid killing PCs, but wanted to make sure the loss was consequential and felt so the players didn't get out of a loss "free."

Well yes, of course that's a factor (and so is the fact that the enemy leader had just been taken out and the Oni were unsupervised), but if short rest healing were in play I would have regretfully had to attempt to TPK the party, rolling dice until they were either all dead or improbable victors. It wouldn't make sense to do otherwise.


Max, I respect your thoughts and opinions a lot, but I do not agree with you here. Nothing in this scenario supports your thesis in a general sense that doesn't include you as the DM. At best, you've shown that a slower natural healing rate is good for players when you are DMing, because you believe that the needle is threaded at the threshold you ran this scenario.

I do not, and don't think most DMs would agree in actual practice. I think most DMs who would have run it similarly to how you did would have done so in standard 5e, as well, because their motive would be to spare the PCs. I think most DMs who would have run it more viciously would have done so regardless of the slow or fast natural healing rate, as well, because they would have thought sparing the dying PCs a pointless show of mercy at too great a risk of there being a party that could come after them in some amount of time that is insufficient to get wholly back to their stronghold and/or disappear entirely.

I think simulationist DMs are more common than you think they are. At best, I've demonstrated that DM motivations that look inimical to you ("we heal slower and somebody has to take the heal feat") can be beneficial to you.

Similar issues will crop up around stuff like illusions--a DM who says certain kinds of illusions won't work a certain way may very well mean "among other reasons because if they did I'd have to use it to kill you when you fight a wizard."

DMs who say "no" aren't necessarily out to get you.

[Segev]

Ah, so you're thinking in the 5E ruleset and not in purely RP terms.

I didn't want to make this a thread about WEGO initiative but yes, RAW cyclic initiative does tend to discourage uneasy truces, as Dork_Forge pointed out. I certainly never claimed that abolishing short rest healing is the ONLY thing you need to make the game less artificially murderous. My point in making this thread was just to point out specifically that without getting rid of ultra-healing-for-everybody, I would have had to had the enemy fight until the party was TPKed, which I didn't want to do. Slower healing isn't necessarily the DM out to get you, sometimes it's the DM looking ahead with foresight so that he won't have to kill you when these kinds of situations turn up.

But I did not intend to claim and do not claim that short rest healing is the only thing that pushes 5E towards murderism. Honestly, switching IGOUGO round robin initiative to WEGO initiative probably has an even bigger impact.Fair enough. I just don't think the 5e-norm for healing would have changed DMs' calculations on this the way it did yours. The other factors are so dominant that it just wouldn't enter in, I think, for most DMs. Especially the factor that - and, again, I'm not saying this factored into your thought process, because I don't know - for most DMs would be most dominant is whether they want to spare PCs or want to kill PCs (when the chance presents itself).


Wait, so there's a 90% chance the PCs will die vs. a 10% chance the Oni would die, and all that's at stake is treasure, and you think that's not a bluff on the PCs' part? You think they're more than 9x as willing as the Oni to risk death? How desperate for treasure do you think these PCs are?

Sorry, no. That's a bluff unless the PCs are utterly psychotic.
No, a bluff would be if the PCs were not willing to follow through, and knew they weren't willing to follow through. And a lot of parties I've known would not be bluffing, here, especially with so much loot on the line, double-especially with loot = xp. They'd have gone for it and started new characters if there was a TPK, because losing that much would be no worse than a TPK to them.

You yourself outlined how little risk the oni was willing to take. So why would the oni be willing to risk his life for the loot but not for killing the PCs in a way that would ensure the PCs have a smaller chance of winning if they DID hunt him down later?

It seems to me the oni was bluffing just as much as the PCs, here. I would say "not much at all," while you seem to think the PCs would've been bluffing hard, but regardless of which way it goes, if the Oni was willing to bargain for not killing the PCs while he looted their unconscious bodies, he certainly should've been willing to bargain for "just leaving, no looting." After all, as you've said, is the loot really worth risking his life for?

[MaxWilson]

Fair enough. I just don't think the 5e-norm for healing would have changed DMs' calculations on this the way it did yours. The other factors are so dominant that it just wouldn't enter in, I think, for most DMs. Especially the factor that - and, again, I'm not saying this factored into your thought process, because I don't know - for most DMs would be most dominant is whether they want to spare PCs or want to kill PCs (when the chance presents itself).

I disagree about pop-up healing, which is why I have repeatedly said on this thread that pop-up healing wasn't important. E.g. even if I were using RAW on death saves and no negative HP, I think it still would have been important that the Oni let Ikarou and Seson live because it didn't expect them to recover strength as rapidly as it does. That means the healing rules are relevant.

WEGO is important too though because otherwise you can't get stable equilibria in combat--you've "forced" to continually attack instead of negotiating. But there are other DMs on this forum who use WEGO initiative too.


No, a bluff would be if the PCs were not willing to follow through, and knew they weren't willing to follow through. And a lot of parties I've known would not be bluffing, here, especially with so much loot on the line, double-especially with loot = xp. They'd have gone for it and started new characters if there was a TPK, because losing that much would be no worse than a TPK to them.

And ultimately the players chose not to risk it, so your suggestion that they could have forced it to give up the treasure was a suggestion to bluff. Do you see the problem here? You're undervaluing the lives of the PCs and overvaluing the life of the monster, and opining without even having been there or knowing all the facts on what the proper psychology for both sides was.


You yourself outlined how little risk the oni was willing to take. So why would the oni be willing to risk his life for the loot but not for killing the PCs in a way that would ensure the PCs have a smaller chance of winning if they DID hunt him down later?

You seem to be getting the wrong impression here. I never said the Oni was unwilling to take risks, and in fact it was pretty close to making the other decision. What I have emphasized and will continue to emphasize was how little it had to gain after having looted the body. What it was risking BTW was a period of inconvenience while it grew a new body, and I somewhat expect this to send you off on a whole new tangent about how it definitely should have attacked, but from my perspective that is really, really off topic because the salient issue is how little it has to gain from killing the PCs.


It seems to me the oni was bluffing just as much as the PCs, here. I would say "not much at all," while you seem to think the PCs would've been bluffing hard, but regardless of which way it goes, if the Oni was willing to bargain for not killing the PCs while he looted their unconscious bodies, he certainly should've been willing to bargain for "just leaving, no looting." After all, as you've said, is the loot really worth risking his life for?

The Oni was fairly confident it could win, if it came down to that. The players were fairly confident they could win, if it came down to that. Neither of them chose to push the issue, so your suggestion that they could have made bigger demands and forced the other side to do stuff sounds to me like a suggestion to bluff.

By threatening the Oni as you initially suggested, you would potentially have given the Oni something to gain by fighting: the emotional satisfaction of showing those tiny humans that they aren't the boss of Oni. Given the Oni's situation where it actually is bossed around by a human routinely, that would have been very satisfying to fight back against. That would have changed the decision calculus, and either the PCs would win and the DM would be surprised, or the party would TPK and the players would be surprised.

[KorvinStarmast]

Because I do like to do the math, and because I think we did not know in this thread that the target's AC was 10 until now (which is, well, no wonder they're down): https://anydice.com/program/237da Go ahead and try to hit with both attacks and deal at least 50 damage. It is, at a minimum, a case of the executioner taking two swings. If we were talking about a character in heavy armor with AC 16 or higher, just hitting wouldn't be guaranteed. With normal dying rules, it wouldn't take a full round of action from one of the strongest enemies on the field to have a better than even chance (42.8 live to 57.2 die) of killing an already downed character. One of the medium sized enemies could have done it. That is a bigger change to "do I finish them off" than any change to the spending of Hit Dice. Interesting post, thanks for doing that.

[MaxWilson]

Interesting post, thanks for doing that.

Just for the record, Urr was at 66 damage out of 55 HP, so the necessary amount of damage to kill him outright is 44 more damage, which is 84.94% likely under Zalabim's assumptions. Screenshot:

https://i.postimg.cc/MHV9QRR8/Graph.png

[KorvinStarmast]

How desperate for treasure do you think these PCs are? Given how you tie XP to GP, plenty desperate. :smallbiggrin:

Sorry, no. That's a bluff unless the PCs are utterly psychotic. Well (1) this is me you are talking about (2) this is the first ever deliberately Evil PC I've made for this edition per our discussions on that one thread where Seson was first born, conceptually.

Psychotic: if he has too many more adventures like this, psychotic might be a shoe that fits.
He's already on edge over losing his family fishing boat ... :smallcool: ... and he did threaten mayhem on that professor / teacher at seminary ... :smalleek:

[MaxWilson]

Given how you tie XP to GP, plenty desperate. :smallbiggrin:
Well (1) this is me you are talking about (2) this is the first ever deliberately Evil PC I've made for this edition per our discussions on that one thread where Seson was first born, conceptually.

Psychotic: if he has too many more adventures like this, psychotic might be a shoe that fits.
He's already on edge over losing his family fishing boat ... :smallcool: ... and he did threaten mayhem on that professor / teacher at seminary ... :smalleek:

Hahaha, I look forward to tempting him in future adventures then.

Note to self: letting you guys loot as much gold from the tomb as you could carry turned out even better than I expected, in terms of its effect on player incentives and behavior. Which means that the gold-to-XP rule is also working well, otherwise I doubt you would have cared so much about maximizing your total gold, e.g. refusing to Dimension Door out because you'd have to leave behind gold to save spell points.

Note2 to self: I wonder how Seson would react to street urchins painting graffiti on his new boat...

[Zalabim]

Just for the record, Urr was at 66 damage out of 55 HP, so the necessary amount of damage to kill him outright is 44 more damage, which is 84.94% likely under Zalabim's assumptions.
If I assume Urr was knocked out by an Oni's glaive attack, then the average damage was 15, and the maximum damage was 24. If I figure Urr was conscious at "took 51 damage" and down at "took 66 damage" then I could estimate that Urr has max hp between 52 and 66 (avg 59) so I would guess, as an outside Oni with a calculator in my head, an average of 52 more hp damage for Urr to be dead-dead. On the maximum end, Urr went down at 66 damage and it could take up to 66 damage more to kill him. In the minimum end, if the attack did maximum damage, then Urr was up at 42 HP, so could have as little as 43 max hp, and be dead-dead in as little as 20 more damage.

So if I'm an impatient Oni, then I don't consider 3 more attacks to guarantee Urr's death to be worth my time. If I'm an overconfident Oni, then I could hit Urr one more time and assume Urr's dead. If I'm a cautious Oni, then I don't voluntarily enter Urr's reach in case this is a feint, and consider whether I really want to take 3 rounds poking the fallen, while heroes are watching, to make sure Urr is dead when I have so much more lucrative things to be doing. Just think of the kind of evil that litters and never returns shopping carts.

[MaxWilson]

If I assume Urr was knocked out by an Oni's glaive attack, then the average damage was 15, and the maximum damage was 24. If I figure Urr was conscious at "took 51 damage" and down at "took 66 damage" then I could estimate that Urr has max hp between 52 and 66 (avg 59) so I would guess, as an outside Oni with a calculator in my head, an average of 52 more hp damage for Urr to be dead-dead. On the maximum end, Urr went down at 66 damage and it could take up to 66 damage more to kill him. In the minimum end, if the attack did maximum damage, then Urr was up at 42 HP, so could have as little as 43 max hp, and be dead-dead in as little as 20 more damage.

So if I'm an impatient Oni, then I don't consider 3 more attacks to guarantee Urr's death to be worth my time. If I'm an overconfident Oni, then I could hit Urr one more time and assume Urr's dead. If I'm a cautious Oni, then I don't voluntarily enter Urr's reach in case this is a feint, and consider whether I really want to take 3 rounds poking the fallen, while heroes are watching, to make sure Urr is dead when I have so much more lucrative things to be doing. Just think of the kind of evil that litters and never returns shopping carts.

For the record, the cautious Oni had already teleported away at this point, with the unconscious body of the enemy leader. Caution paid off this time and he's going to get a promotion.

Nothing in the narration guarantees that the impatient, overconfident Oni didn't hit Urr one more time, but if so Urr wound up surviving (presumably stabilized again and then Ikarou subsequently healed him, eventually).

[KorvinStarmast]

If I assume Urr was knocked out by an Oni's glaive attack,
I had 8 rounds of spiritual weapon still active, and it was about next to Urr, and I could sacred flame from inside my magic circle. Just sayin' ... he wasn't totally secure, and our Artificer next to me had a few tricks left in the bag ...

[BerzerkerUnit]

I’ve never used HP as a direct analog for injury unless some effect warrants it, so restoring all hp after a night’s rest isn’t a problem for me.

If you want to slow the pace of the adventure, I think there are better ways. Like RP based problems, natural disasters, etc. “sorry Balgar, we appreciate how you take all the hits, you can stay bedridden for a week while the rest of us do this investigation...” doesn’t seem fun to me.

[MaxWilson]

If you want to slow the pace of the adventure

I don't. That's a non-goal here.

[JackPhoenix]

My point in making this thread was just to point out specifically that without getting rid of ultra-healing-for-everybody, I would have had to had the enemy fight until the party was TPKed, which I didn't want to do. Slower healing isn't necessarily the DM out to get you, sometimes it's the DM looking ahead with foresight so that he won't have to kill you when these kinds of situations turn up.

So you say. But as you *are* using those houserules, you can't prove you wouldn't find another excuse to avoid killing the PCs (something you, as a GM, don't want to do) if you used standard healing rules.

[SpanielBear]

Gotta say, I agree with those that say the house rule for healing is a solution in search of a problem. Not in terms of your game- clearly it was exactly right for your players, and that’s great. But a) the situation is so specific and b) there are so many assumptions being made on the basis of house rules that generalising from it seems unjustified.

Especially seeing as, given the breadth of house rules you use, it’s hard to say you are using 5e anymore. It feels more like a homebrew system using a 5e chassis. And when the argument is that 5e assumptions don’t fit into that, the only response can be an unsurprised shrug. “5e healing doesn’t work with non-5e rules.” Okay.

None of this is meant as a criticism of your game or DMing style- the evidence of player satisfaction is right there. Just that I don’t think it makes a compelling critique of 5e as a system when 5e is only present as a shell at best.

[Sorinth]

Hiding in an cellar or corn field (or in a Rope Trick) for an hour strikes you as infeasible? Well, maybe that's where we disagree then.



And the bandits care what the players think, why? In a world where rapid healing recovery is routine for everyone and everything, you don't say, "Oh, those guys probably don't have any more weapons. They'd have to fight us barehanded, so let's leave them alone." Instead you say, "Let's make sure someone goes around and cuts all their throats so they don't recover and jump us while we're busy pillaging."

Hiding in a cellar/corn field will just as likely lead to another fight before they have completed a SR, or even TPK if they do what many raiders do and set fire to everything. Realistically the PCs and villagers need to get further away before they can rest.

Rope Trick sure, but if magic is involved then they don't even need to SR. If the bandits are treating the PCs like villagers SR healing will have no bearing on what they do. If they recognize the PCs as special then they are threats with or without SR healing.

It really sounds like you have a solution looking for a problem.

[KorvinStarmast]

It really sounds like you have a solution looking for a problem. That's a little unfair. Since 5e came out, a great number of posts on GiTP (and elsewhere) have been made about how overpowerful healing is in this edition, and the never ending search for a more gritty approach that better reflects one of any number of previous editions. (Heck the DMG even has a gritty realism variant of its own, so they saw this coming). Put another way, a number of players think that how 5e handles healing is a problem. So do a number of DMs.

1. As we put the party together, our PCs all bought a medicine kit as a result once we tried to get our brains around Max's rule. There is one party member who has the healer feat, which he then applies to the PCs. it's useful, and it costs a resource.

2.Since I am a player who does not dislike the standard 5e healing, and I am a DM who likes it (means I don't have to seed the world with healing potions), getting my brain around the Maxian HP recover system was some work. And I'm playing a cleric. (Maybe I should have played a life cleric, but I am an arcana cleric).

3. This entire discussion and example would be far more useful if we were playing in person; the game is being played as play by post, which for a number of us is a little bit new (at least in how to do it GiTP style) and has been hampered by various of us, me included, missing a few days in a row and others having to guess at their actions when action call comes in. We also had one player drop out as that battle was still ongoing, due to RL issues.
I really hope that RL will lighten up on them and allow them to return.

4. All in all, I think your criticism, from the outside, isn't very fair - there are a large number of things that the monsters/NPCs do that is, as we discuss them with Max, based in verisimilitude and not a strictly gamist approach.
The play itself, once the houserules kick in, is an interesting combo - feel wise - between 5e and the AD&D style that I was so familiar with many years ago.

[MaxWilson]

Hiding in a cellar/corn field will just as likely lead to another fight before they have completed a SR, or even TPK if they do what many raiders do and set fire to everything. Realistically the PCs and villagers need to get further away before they can rest.

Rope Trick sure, but if magic is involved then they don't even need to SR. If the bandits are treating the PCs like villagers SR healing will have no bearing on what they do. If they recognize the PCs as special then they are threats with or without SR healing.

It really sounds like you have a solution looking for a problem.

To the extent this is true you're pointing to the wrong source of the problem. If I'm saying, "Slower healing can prevent the DM from having to let the monsters TPK you," and you say, "5E is so easy that TPKs never happen in practice--the DM just has to stick to DMG guidance without deliberately exploiting the flaws in it such as trick monsters and hordes" well, you'd be right. I find that style of play unfun but you'd be right.

Having a strategy to deal with frequent potential TPKs is only a necessity if you're running a game that deliberately tries to make multiple endings to an adventure all possible, based on player choices: great success, horrible failure and death, Faustian bargain to switch sides in a ongoing conflict, mild success setting up future successes, etc.


...there are a large number of things that the monsters/NPCs do that is, as we discuss them with Max, based in verisimilitude and not a strictly gamist approach.
The play itself, once the houserules kick in, is an interesting combo - feel wise - between 5e and the AD&D style that I was so familiar with many years ago.

I take great joy in both these sentences. Thank you, Korvin!

[Sorinth]

To the extent this is true you're pointing to the wrong source of the problem. If I'm saying, "Slower healing can prevent the DM from having to let the monsters TPK you," and you say, "5E is so easy that TPKs never happen in practice--the DM just has to stick to DMG guidance without deliberately exploiting the flaws in it such as trick monsters and hordes" well, you'd be right. I find that style of play unfun but you'd be right.

Having a strategy to deal with frequent potential TPKs is only a necessity if you're running a game that deliberately tries to make multiple endings to an adventure all possible, based on player choices: great success, horrible failure and death, Faustian bargain to switch sides in a ongoing conflict, mild success setting up future successes, etc.

No I'm saying you don't need to have rules to justify why enemies would be left alive because it's not a rules based decision.

Whether the bandits go out of their way to kill the villagers/PCs is purely about the bandits motivations and nothing to do with whether someone left alive will heal up in a barn and then fight again. If the bandits aren't particularly bloodthirsty and their goal is take cattle then they aren't going to finish their kills they'll fight whoever offers resistance and let everyone else flee. If they are a bunch of psychos who get pleasure from killing then they won't be content with just a KO.

[PhantomSoul]

No I'm saying you don't need to have rules to justify why enemies would be left alive because it's not a rules based decision.

Whether the bandits go out of their way to kill the villagers/PCs is purely about the bandits motivations and nothing to do with whether someone left alive will heal up in a barn and then fight again. If the bandits aren't particularly bloodthirsty and their goal is take cattle then they aren't going to finish their kills they'll fight whoever offers resistance and let everyone else flee. If they are a bunch of psychos who get pleasure from killing then they won't be content with just a KO.
(emphasis mine)

I'd have to say it's a rules-informed decision; the rules tell you something about how the world works, and how the world works informs how a creature is likely to act. Sure, creatures will differ based on goals and personalities, but they also act based on how the world works. Play Minecraft on Ultrahardcore vs. Hardcore vs. Easy; you probably won't play the same way. To some extent, the game hasn't been changed and you're still the same person, but perma-death has an effect and the lack of HP regeneration has an effect. It's the same here; it's weird for all creatures to act like perma-death is immediate and inevitable if the world actually operates on Easy mode, particularly since they then could be interrupted or threatened by something they just chose to ignore. (Here it's actually a BIGGER deal than for Easy unless, to adapt the analogy, your Spawn point is also right there and you could pop up at basically any time [within 5 rounds even without healing, then failing that 1d4 hours, then failing that you might be revivified or the like, and only failing all of that are you actually dead normally].)

[Sorinth]

(emphasis mine)

I'd have to say it's a rules-informed decision; the rules tell you something about how the world works, and how the world works informs how a creature is likely to act. Sure, creatures will differ based on goals and personalities, but they also act based on how the world works. Play Minecraft on Ultrahardcore vs. Hardcore vs. Easy; you probably won't play the same way. To some extent, the game hasn't been changed and you're still the same person, but perma-death has an effect and the lack of HP regeneration has an effect. It's the same here; it's weird for all creatures to act like perma-death is immediate and inevitable if the world actually operates on Easy mode, particularly since they then could be interrupted or threatened by something they just chose to ignore. (Here it's actually a BIGGER deal than for Easy unless, to adapt the analogy, your Spawn point is also right there and you could pop up at basically any time [within 5 rounds even without healing, then failing that 1d4 hours, then failing that you might be revivified or the like, and only failing all of that are you actually dead normally].)

How informed are they about the rules? It's not like they have access to a PHB that explains how everything in the world works. Because I'm pretty sure the number of times a given bandit has seen a guy magically pop back up 30s after being KOed and start fighting at 100% power is going to be 0.

[PhantomSoul]

How informed are they about the rules? It's not like they have access to a PHB that explains how everything in the world works. Because I'm pretty sure the number of times a given bandit has seen a guy magically pop back up 30s after being KOed and start fighting at 100% power is going to be 0.

They don't need to read the PHB if they experience the world and those rules reflect something accurate for the world. (It might not have the same mechanics, but the mechanics are approximating some result that is clearly in the world.)

[Pex]

How informed are they about the rules? It's not like they have access to a PHB that explains how everything in the world works. Because I'm pretty sure the number of times a given bandit has seen a guy magically pop back up 30s after being KOed and start fighting at 100% power is going to be 0.

If any such bandit would kill it would be because of "pop-up healing". When the PC they drop gets up because another PC casts a healing spell that's when they might make sure the next PC they drop stays dropped.

There is a thing where villains drop the hero and leave him thinking he's dead only to come back later and ruin their plans. Short rest healing doesn't mean the villain will make sure they stay dead. Healing in general will make sure the hero stays dead. How often a PC is killed then depends on the DM/campaign. If a PC dies every session something is wrong. A DM can kill a PC any time he wants, rules or no rules. It's not done because then there really isn't any game. What is an acceptable death rate or appropriate PC death is subjective to the gaming group. It's a metagame issue, not a rules issue.

[Sorinth]

They don't need to read the PHB if they experience the world and those rules reflect something accurate for the world. (It might not have the same mechanics, but the mechanics are approximating some result that is clearly in the world.)

Agreed, and how often does the bandit encounter a situation where he KOed someone and less then 30s later that person got up and fought at 100%?

Because my guess is that the bandit has never seen that situation occur.

[PhantomSoul]

Agreed, and how often does the bandit encounter a situation where he KOed someone and less then 30s later that person got up and fought at 100%?

Because my guess is that the bandit has never seen that situation occur.

Given the rates of popping back up (I think they're earlier in this thread?), it seems pretty reasonable to think someone in the group would have seen that (and minimally heard of it) unless the entire bandit camp just appeared fresh out of nowhere in the world when the random encounter was rolled!

[Segev]

The issue here is that Max has very emphatically stated that this isn't about pop-up healing, but about 1 hour to heal to effective fighting form vs. 24 hours to heal to effective fighting form.

Personally, I still don't think the thesis holds up that this would really be a factor on the level it's being advertised as in any game other than this one, with any DM other than Max.

[PhantomSoul]

The issue here is that Max has very emphatically stated that this isn't about pop-up healing, but about 1 hour to heal to effective fighting form vs. 24 hours to heal to effective fighting form.

Personally, I still don't think the thesis holds up that this would really be a factor on the level it's being advertised as in any game other than this one, with any DM other than Max.

For "popping up", I just meant "returning to 1+ HP", not pop up healing specifically. I think that only matters (in non-nat-20 cases, which are still a solid 18% of cases even then) for a smaller number of creatures based on their objectives. But bandits spending one hour to loot? Reasonable enough, and that's an extra 10% of chance for each target [41.375% chance to stabilise without external healing, then 25% of being conscious with 1 HP one hour later] which equates to a relative +50% for about 29% chance to pop up within one hour if you didn't confirm they're dead.

[Segev]

For "popping up", I just meant "returning to 1+ HP", not pop up healing specifically. I think that only matters (in non-nat-20 cases, which are still a solid 18% of cases even then) for a smaller number of creatures based on their objectives. But bandits spending one hour to loot? Reasonable enough, and that's an extra 10% of chance for each target [41.375% chance to stabilise without external healing, then 25% of being conscious with 1 HP one hour later] which equates to a relative +50% for about 29% chance to pop up within one hour if you didn't confirm they're dead.

It's specifically the short rest healing Max is talking about, though. I doubt any bandits would leave some folks "maybe" dead knowing there are allies of theirs right there who can spend an hour resting up, and, left to their own devices, will ensure their downed friends who aren't dead heal up as well. Max's scenario here is very, very specific. It's hard to come up with analogous ones to generalize the case, because any disruption to the delicate balance breaks the reasoning chain. A reasoning chain I already find pretty precarious.

[MaxWilson]

It's specifically the short rest healing Max is talking about, though. I doubt any bandits would leave some folks "maybe" dead knowing there are allies of theirs right there who can spend an hour resting up, and, left to their own devices, will ensure their downed friends who aren't dead heal up as well. Max's scenario here is very, very specific. It's hard to come up with analogous ones to generalize the case, because any disruption to the delicate balance breaks the reasoning chain. A reasoning chain I already find pretty precarious.

The broader principle is "DM nerfing ultra-healing may have your best interests in mind." It does not seem unreasonable for PhantomSoul to draw a line to the "recover consciousness and 1 HP in 1d4 hours" rule. It's certainly more reasonable in my mind than all those people focusing on alternatives to negative HP as if that were a solution to the whole issue instead of just a piece of it.

I also don't think PhantomSoul is saying that changing the 1d4 hours rule would solve the whole problem, which is another part of why it seems reasonable.

But I confess that I'm no longer paying close attention to the discussion so maybe I've lost track of what you guys are fighting about. I only popped up here to say, "since you mention my name as if you expect me to object to Phantom Soul's post--FYI I don't."

[Segev]

The broader principle is "DM nerfing ultra-healing may have your best interests in mind." It does not seem unreasonable for PhantomSoul to draw a line to the "recover consciousness and 1 HP in 1d4 hours" rule. It's certainly more reasonable in my mind than all those people focusing on alternatives to negative HP as if that were a solution to the whole issue instead of just a piece of it.

I also don't think PhantomSoul is saying that changing the 1d4 hours rule would solve the whole problem, which is another part of why it seems reasonable.

But I confess that I'm no longer paying close attention to the discussion so maybe I've lost track of what you guys are fighting about. I only popped up here to say, "since you mention my name as if you expect me to object to Phantom Soul's post--FYI I don't."

Fair enough. My disagreement with you is primarily over the fact that I don't think your example supports the thesis of, "DM nerfing ultra-healing may have your best interests in mind." It is clear you had the PCs' best interests in mind in the scenario, but I do not believe the "nerfing ultra-healing" is as big or generalizable a part of it as you do.

[Pex]

It's specifically the short rest healing Max is talking about, though. I doubt any bandits would leave some folks "maybe" dead knowing there are allies of theirs right there who can spend an hour resting up, and, left to their own devices, will ensure their downed friends who aren't dead heal up as well. Max's scenario here is very, very specific. It's hard to come up with analogous ones to generalize the case, because any disruption to the delicate balance breaks the reasoning chain. A reasoning chain I already find pretty precarious.

I know it is about short rest healing, but that's my point. Bandits won't kill PCs because of it. They just want the loot and get out of there. When they're seeing PCs not stay "dead" because of in combat healing then they'll make sure dead stays dead. When PCs do short rest healing the bandits are long gone never to be seen again unless PCs dedicate themselves to finding them and succeed on doing it. If they do, then the bandits will make sure dead stay dead, not because of short rest healing but because the PCs were able to find them.

The thread premise is incorrect. If Max needs his solution for his game, fine. He doesn't need my permission nor approval, but I disagree his solution is needed for everyone, colloquially speaking.

[MaxWilson]

I disagree his solution is needed for everyone, colloquially speaking.

I agree that it's not needed for everyone.

[ff7hero]

Given how you tie XP to GP, plenty desperate. :smallbiggrin:
Well (1) this is me you are talking about (2) this is the first ever deliberately Evil PC I've made for this edition per our discussions on that one thread where Seson was first born, conceptually.

Psychotic: if he has too many more adventures like this, psychotic might be a shoe that fits.
He's already on edge over losing his family fishing boat ... :smallcool: ... and he did threaten mayhem on that professor / teacher at seminary ... :smalleek:

Huh...Seson is Evil....? Well done, I had no idea.

[KorvinStarmast]

Huh...Seson is Evil....? Well done, I had no idea. There was a post some months ago where someone was asking about Evil PCs, and I presented a few background / class combination that would in my view make for an Evil PC who is interesting to play.

I'd have to mine my various old posts to find them all; Max and a couple of others challenged me on 'how does that make him evil' and part of the answer is 'that will emerge during play' - but one of the reasons that Seson is adventuring is that he believes in "high risk high reward" and if you have bad luck, tough. But since he grew up sailing and fishing with his father, he knows the importance of teamwork to "get the catch home" - it's a core value.
Also, evil does not mean 'disruptive to the group' - as a player, play that is disruptive of the group has no alignment label. It's just bad play.

Unlike Arabella, Seson has/had no qualms at all about using that sword; I am still upset at myself with my choice to not go for the limerick. A one round poem that was successful would have made a huge difference in that battle. And I am pretty good at limericks.

[Zalabim]

Unlike Arabella, Seson has/had no qualms at all about using that sword; I am still upset at myself with my choice to not go for the limerick. A one round poem that was successful would have made a huge difference in that battle. And I am pretty good at limericks.

I have no idea of the context for this, but I can say Limericks are simply the best. I use them for every poetry test. Prescriptions that are terse create a quick rhyming verse, and I hope with this one you're impressed.

[MaxWilson]

I have no idea of the context for this, but I can say Limericks are simply the best. I use them for every poetry test. Prescriptions that are terse create a quick rhyming verse, and I hope with this one you're impressed.

Context: magical sword, Farslayer expy. Recite a poem about why the target deserves to die, throw the sword, make a Performance check (DC based on how good the poem is in DM's subjective evaluation, in this case it was a 3 verse = 3 round poem that was quite persuasive, so DC 3). On a success, the sword finds the target anywhere in the world and permakills them.

In this case, Seson lamented the fact that he hadn't written a poem that was short enough to be recited in one round because the target was actually in visual range fighting back while the poem was being recited, and things went moderately poorly and the Sword got taken.

[Woggle]

Context: magical sword, Farslayer expy. Recite a poem about why the target deserves to die, throw the sword, make a Performance check (DC based on how good the poem is in DM's subjective evaluation, in this case it was a 3 verse = 3 round poem that was quite persuasive, so DC 3). On a success, the sword finds the target anywhere in the world and permakills them.

I've been lurking on this discussion since I've been thinking of adopting a negative hit point system similar to the one you use, but now I think I also should add certain swords to my game too :)

[MaxWilson]

I've been lurking on this discussion since I've been thinking of adopting a negative hit point system similar to the one you use, but now I think I also should add certain swords to my game too :)

:) In this case I spliced Farslayer with Nightblood from the Stormlight Archives to give it a more interesting personality and more tactical restrictions than Farslayer. "Hello, would you like to destroy some evil today?!"

Plus, adventurers being adventurers, I didn't want to give them a weapon that could guaranteed insta-kill anything at all with no risk, so adding a requirement to persuade the sword that the target needs to die means the sword won't get used on trivial threats. A delightful player quote: "Seriously considering Performance Expertise in case we get Bardslayer back. Never thought that would be on the table, haha."

Not all of the swords seem appropriate per se for D&D--I would hesitate to adapt the Mindsword for example, and Shieldbreaker's invulnerability clause is tough to adapt--but Sightblinder seems tailor-made for fun D&D shenanigans, and Woundhealer and Coinspinner both seem game-appropriate.

E.g. Coinspinner writeup: "You succeed on any die roll that isn't a natural 1, and enemies have -10 to their rolls against you, but every day the DM will secretly roll to determine whether the sword attempts to escape from you at some point during the day, which may include (1) changing its location, such as slithering out of your scabbard and under the table during a meal at an inn, so that if you do not explicitly check for the Sword it is lost; or (2) attempting to change masters by allowing a foe to defeat you, including reversing the effects of its luck on you at a critical moment (but only once that day)."

[Woggle]

Plus, adventurers being adventurers, I didn't want to give them a weapon that could guaranteed insta-kill anything at all with no risk, so adding a requirement to persuade the sword that the target needs to die means the sword won't get used on trivial threats. A delightful player quote: "Seriously considering Performance Expertise in case we get Bardslayer back. Never thought that would be on the table, haha."

It's been a long time since I've read the books, but Farslayer has the risk of being "sent back" at one of the players, doesn't it? Though maybe the risk of PC insta-death isn't a great attribute to work into a magic item, :smallbiggrin:. The performance check seems like a pretty good compromise, and very flavourful!


Not all of the swords seem appropriate per se for D&D--I would hesitate to adapt the Mindsword for example, and Shieldbreaker's invulnerability clause is tough to adapt--but Sightblinder seems tailor-made for fun D&D shenanigans, and Woundhealer and Coinspinner both seem game-appropriate.
Hmm, that's a good point. I think Townsaver would work pretty well too, but from what I remember of Mindsword that seems like a good call.


.g. Coinspinner writeup: "You succeed on any die roll that isn't a natural 1, and enemies have -10 to their rolls against you, but every day the DM will secretly roll to determine whether the sword attempts to escape from you at some point during the day, which may include (1) changing its location, such as slithering out of your scabbard and under the table during a meal at an inn, so that if you do not explicitly check for the Sword it is lost; or (2) attempting to change masters by allowing a foe to defeat you, including reversing the effects of its luck on you at a critical moment (but only once that day)."
Ooh, this is really great, I'm definitely going to steal it and work it in at some point, thanks!

[MaxWilson]

It's been a long time since I've read the books, but Farslayer has the risk of being "sent back" at one of the players, doesn't it? Though maybe the risk of PC insta-death isn't a great attribute to work into a magic item, :smallbiggrin:. The performance check seems like a pretty good compromise, and very flavourful!

That strategic risk is a thing, but it's not really a serious tactical risk unless the enemy already knows what Farslayer is--in the later books we see Baron Armintor very carefully throwing Farslayer only at people he's directly facing in combat already, so he can recover the Sword immediately.

The strategic risk is the main element that makes Farslayer risky (not just the risk that they'll throw it back at the PCs, but the good old Farslayer risk of decapitating friendly nations and destabilizing potentially-hostile nations into becoming more hostile (or less!)), and Bardslayer too, but I wanted to add a tactical risk too, and engage player creativity for overcoming it each time. I think it's possible you could just use Farslayer vanilla, but in this case I thought it would be more fun to add an extra layer. The fact that Seson is grumbling to himself about writing a three-verse poem instead of a one-verse poem is IMO a proof that this way did make it more interesting. YMMV though. :)


Hmm, that's a good point. I think Townsaver would work pretty well too, but from what I remember of Mindsword that seems like a good call.

Oh yeah, Townsaver too.

I suppose Mindsword might work if you restricted it only to people and people-like creatures, e.g. excluding anything without a personal name or with Int below 5. I'm reluctant to experiment though, especially since having thousands of slaves just isn't likely to be fun for players even if they do get the Mindsword.


Ooh, this is really great, I'm definitely going to steal it and work it in at some point, thanks!

Thank you! I want to work in Coinspinner too. The most logical way to do so is to give it to a powerful villain like a ruler or a lich a la Wood, have it slither away from him, and have him desperately searching to get it back. If PCs stumble across the sword, they can keep it and earn an enemy, or return it to the bad guy for a reward (it's always fun to have PCs owed favors by bad guys--claiming the favor can be complicated, even if the bad guy acts in good faith, because of the bad guy's utter lack of scruples).

[ff7hero]

~snip~

I totally agree. Especially regarding the evil doesn't equal disruptive point. My "well done" was a combination of "nice work not falling into that trap" and "I didn't realize it was true but there's no evidence that it's not." I love a good character "twist."

My poetry "talents" lie more in haiku (I'm less bad at those than other forms of poetry), which seem like they'd either be great or awful for Bardslayer. Short, but not much room to argue your case.

"Human, name unknown,
stole my bow, left me for dead.
He had some sweet boots."


It's been a long time since I've read the books, but Farslayer has the risk of being "sent back" at one of the players, doesn't it?

Failing the Performance check means the thrower dies instead of the target, which is my main impetus for the Performance Expertise.

[MaxWilson]

"Human, name unknown,
stole my bow, left me for dead.
He had some sweet boots."


Oops, you just killed Kaladin!

But seriously, Bardslayer would like that one. DC 5.

[KorvinStarmast]

Oops, you just killed Kaladin!

But seriously, Bardslayer would like that one. DC 5. But to get that sword we now have to take on the big bad. Gee, thanks! :smallyuk:

[MaxWilson]

But to get that sword we now have to take on the big bad. Gee, thanks! :smallyuk:

I mean, maybe.

That's not actually the twist I currently have in mind though.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Context: magical sword, Farslayer expy. Recite a poem about why the target deserves to die, throw the sword, make a Performance check (DC based on how good the poem is in DM's subjective evaluation, in this case it was a 3 verse = 3 round poem that was quite persuasive, so DC 3). On a success, the sword finds the target anywhere in the world and permakills them.


Hey Max, my 5e inaugural campaign,
(which is still going strong seven years later), is a Swords of Power campaign.👍🍻

It is very welcomed to read other's version of the Swords‼️

I vacillated on having a creature slain by Farslayer, be 'Perma-dead'.

Ultimately, I decided to have the death caused by Farslayer to be a 'normal' death and the creature can be raised: (with some noticeable exceptions...the Gods are 'perma-dead', and being slain by Farslayer places a numerical limit on how many times one can be Raised from the Dead in the future..[equal to CON modifier])

One of the aspects I have most enjoyed about including the Swords of Power is seeing how the impact the swords have in the world changes from the books to 5e D&D.

Stonecutter, which I gave a Passwall/Move Earth type of effect gave me 'the fits' as a DM, as the Players were very effective at using it to shape terrain to their advantage.

In the books Stonecutter is a relatively 'minor' sword....in my gameplay expierence...it was really quite potent.

Farslayer without Perma-death is still rather potent, (but not surprisingly), not as powerful as in the books. (Still rather Boss though ).


That strategic risk is a thing, but it's not really a serious tactical risk unless the enemy already knows what Farslayer is--in the later books we see Baron Armintor very carefully throwing Farslayer only at people he's directly facing in combat already, so he can recover the Sword immediately.

The strategic risk is the main element that makes Farslayer risky (not just the risk that they'll throw it back at the PCs, but the good old Farslayer risk of decapitating friendly nations and destabilizing potentially-hostile nations into becoming more hostile (or less!)),

I agree with all of this. The players have not read the books by Saberhagen, but independently devised the 'close range auto-kill' stratagem.


:)
Not all of the swords seem appropriate per se for D&D--I would hesitate to adapt the Mindsword for example, and Shieldbreaker's invulnerability clause is tough to adapt--but Sightblinder seems tailor-made for fun D&D shenanigans, and Woundhealer and Coinspinner both seem game-appropriate.

Yeah...the Mindsword and Soulcutter are both swords I am loath to describe. Alas, the Players..(and certain NPCs), have acquiring the Mindsword, as the next item on their 'To Do' List.

My tentative first draft is to give the Mindsword the powers of a Rod of Rulership, with an increase in the Spell DC to higher number than a 15, and also remove the "Once per day" restriction. Each blow that is delivered by the Mindsword also subjects the Target to the Charmed Condition (until the start of the wielder's next turn), though there is a Saving Throw to negate this effect.

I might add in a Dominate Monster power, usable once per day, (unless the wielder rolls a '6' on a d6 per the Major Beneficial Property table in the DMG), and some flavorful detrimental qualities.

[KorvinStarmast]

@MaxWilson:
Now that we know who has it, and now that Arabella may leave us (she had misgivings about that sword) what are the odds that we don't want that sword? :smallbiggrin: We're PCs, man.

[MaxWilson]

@MaxWilson:
Now that we know who has it, and now that Arabella may leave us (she had misgivings about that sword) what are the odds that we don't want that sword? :smallbiggrin: We're PCs, man.

Well, all I meant was that I don't expect you to have to fight Korel's boss to get it.

But let's see what happens with the mirror first, on August 16. Maybe my plans will turn out to be irrelevant.

[KorvinStarmast]

Well, all I meant was that I don't expect you to have to fight Korel's boss to get it.

But let's see what happens with the mirror first, on August 16. Maybe my plans will turn out to be irrelevant. Oh, you tease! :smallbiggrin:

[ff7hero]

I mean, maybe.

That's not actually the twist I currently have in mind though.

Inb4 Bardslayer reappears in the corpse of one of our few allies. >.>

[MaxWilson]

Inb4 Bardslayer reappears in the corpse of one of our few allies. >.>

Now that Hawk is dead you really don't have any allies worth killing. No, I'm thinking of something a little more... Shakespearean maybe? :)