Healing Question

[Lobo316]

Quick question...according to the RAW, when you use healing (spells and potions in particular) when you heal a character who is below 0 HPs, he first goes to 0, then normal or magical healing proceeds from there.

Is anyone using any optional rules that allows hit points restored when below 0, to go directly into positive figures (if the hit points healed would take you there) not stopping at 0? If so, how has that affected game play, if at all?

Thanks!

[Go0gleplex]

Our group lets the cured hit points go on a one to one basis without doing a stutter at 0 first.

[Lobo316]

Our group lets the cured hit points go on a one to one basis without doing a stutter at 0 first.

Cool, does it seem to affect your game in any "unbalancing" way, or is it all good?

Anyone else?

[Omote]

We do it by the book. Here's why. I think the Trolls were on to some kind of genius here. If a member of the group is dropped to some negative amount of HP and is still alive, it stands to reason that the next PC in turn order should not just walk up and dump a healing potion on the down PC. The fighter goes down like a lump, and in a few seconds is back up and fighting like nothing happened. NO WAY!

This idea that it takes at least two people or two rounds to bring a PC up from negatives has worked out awesome for us. This rule alone put some fear back into the hearts of our players who usually are not that worried about dropping to negative HPs.

By using this rule, the party would have to spread out healing and healing potions to more then just one party member. Also, it might take the use of two people to help a fallen comrade.

But the benevolent Trolls were not as harsh as they could have been. As long as a PC doesn't drop to -7 or lower, that PC is just out. While down he could wait until the end of battle to be healed as long as the emenies don't make it a habbit of stabbing the unconscious PCs!

~O

[mgtremaine]

I also do BtB also stable at 0 and then up. But I did make one small change to First Aid, it can stabilize OR cure 1hp. Just seems like the party always needs some extra healing even if it is only 1pt.

-Mike

[Lobo316]

Greatness, thanks for the feedback. We are running it btb, and will continue to do so for now. Heck, the party has Fate Point as it is, so they already have a boon to help them stay on thier feet.

[serleran]

I like that healing brings one to 0, first, as it gives purpose to bandages, non-magical healing, and minor healing spells such as first aid, goodberry, or cure light wounds. For me, the more powerful spells, such as anything 2nd level and above, simply heals whatever is rolled, minus whatever you're at -- so, if your at -6 and get 12 points of healing, you're now at 6 HP. Perhaps one thing I do slightly differently is to not have unconsciousness (you can get there) by default but rather have the negative HP apply as a penalty to all actions. Barbarians (like some monsters, such as many bears) can use this to an advantage as I have slightly modified their class abilities.

[Go0gleplex]

I should note that I was referring to magical healing only. But no, it doesn't seem to unbalance anything.

[Lobo316]

I like that healing brings one to 0, first, as it gives purpose to bandages, non-magical healing, and minor healing spells such as first aid, goodberry, or cure light wounds. For me, the more powerful spells, such as anything 2nd level and above, simply heals whatever is rolled, minus whatever you're at -- so, if your at -6 and get 12 points of healing, you're now at 6 HP. Perhaps one thing I do slightly differently is to not have unconsciousness (you can get there) by default but rather have the negative HP apply as a penalty to all actions. Barbarians (like some monsters, such as many bears) can use this to an advantage as I have slightly modified their class abilities.

OK, just to be clear, what you are saying here is that you are not going by the RAW, is that correct? By the RAW, the healing stops at 0 (you don't go from -6 to +6). Is that right?

[serleran]

Sort of, yes.

A strict interpretation like that renders the more powerful healing spells almost useless. When you would need them most, for example, is when someone has been dropped to the brink of death and you need to restore them to fighting ability, not merely prevent death. Some spells, like heal are an obvious exception, but let's take this example...

Bubba Jo the fighter with 23 HP has been damaged in a severe fight against a troll and its lackey minions. He's at -5 and nearing death. The cleric ally pulls a scroll of cure critical wounds to help. By a hard RAW reading, Bubba Jo gets put to 0 and requires another resource to be used. By my method, allowing any 2nd+ level healing spell to have full effect, Bubba Jo can actually come back into the fight.

Either way works. RaW is deadlier.

[Lobo316]

Sort of, yes.

A strict interpretation like that renders the more powerful healing spells almost useless. When you would need them most, for example, is when someone has been dropped to the brink of death and you need to restore them to fighting ability, not merely prevent death. Some spells, like heal are an obvious exception, but let's take this example...

Bubba Jo the fighter with 23 HP has been damaged in a severe fight against a troll and its lackey minions. He's at -5 and nearing death. The cleric ally pulls a scroll of cure critical wounds to help. By a hard RAW reading, Bubba Jo gets put to 0 and requires another resource to be used. By my method, allowing any 2nd+ level healing spell to have full effect, Bubba Jo can actually come back into the fight.

Either way works. RaW is deadlier.

Ahh...I see what your doing. It's level 2 and higher that "break" the 0 stop barrier. Intersting actually, may consider that myself.

[Lord Dynel]

I agree with serl that RAW can be deadlier. But something he alluded to that might be behind some of his reasoning (or perhaps not) would be not to "waste" more powerful spells (2nd and higher) on the "stutter" at 0 hit points. I think that using the cure critical wounds scroll, in serl's example, would be quite a waste if it was only going to bring the fighter to 0. But I think I agree with Omote in this case - he shouldn't be on the brink of death one round and up and fighting the next. To me, some of the verisimilitude is lost that way. But that's my opinion.

[Ancalagon]

We do it by the book. Here's why. I think the Trolls were on to some kind of genius here. If a member of the group is dropped to some negative amount of HP and is still alive, it stands to reason that the next PC in turn order should not just walk up and dump a healing potion on the down PC. The fighter goes down like a lump, and in a few seconds is back up and fighting like nothing happened. NO WAY!

This idea that it takes at least two people or two rounds to bring a PC up from negatives has worked out awesome for us. This rule alone put some fear back into the hearts of our players who usually are not that worried about dropping to negative HPs.
<snip>
~O

I like this. It helps make combat more exciting and/or tense knowing that characters can't jump right back up like video game characters.

[Dead Horse]

There needs to be a penalty for being incapatated. One round is not alot but it does effect the battle.
I do it BtB heal to zero then able to heal to full. With the exception of the "Heal" spell. its major mojo and i play it at face value.