The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
You are right that there are a very limited number of ways to remove stunned. TCoE monks can do it, for example. But I feel the real elephant in the room is putting a player out of an entire combat. I imagine that is what led the game designers to make the choices they have.
There are many approaches to play that I believe wouldn't benefit from the Stunned rule. Off the top of my head, introductory play, pick-up play, casual play, one-offs, groups who want to feel like a***-kicking heroes.
On the other hand, I wouldn't equate the stunned rule to "gritty" or "old school" play. It was first motivated by the unattractiveness of whack-a-mole. Hero goes down. They get up. Goes down again. Up again. And so on. For us, it's just unappealing. We considered just removing the going down part altogether! We tried making healing word a 2nd-level spell, which then cast the "efficiency of dying" problem that I describe above in bright light.
There are then other consequences worth considering. In baseline play, we don't see defensive buffs getting used. The best play is almost always attack, or attack better. When combats are driven by the simple - we fight until you all are down, or we all are down - only attacks can settle the matter. Making down mean down enhances this calculation: defensive actions gain revelance.
That's all well and good, but - for me - such wargamer-ish considerations are not really about improving the wargame. Combat is just one recourse for resolving conflicts on all kinds of matters. It's those conflicts that matter, not the combat (conflicting desires, conflict across moral lines, conflicting needs) so it is fantastic to be able to end combat without being forced to make everyone on the other side fail all their death saves. (Choosing not to deal lethal only works for player characters, it makes no difference to whack-a-mole: a heal is still a heal.) It is fantastic for combat to feel more like a last recourse, and less like our primary means of expression.
So my answer to the "elephant in the room" is - groups can have different goals in mind for the combat-minigame. The best solution (for them) will speak to those goals. My goals require combat to be tightened up and consequential because winning combat resolves some conflict that the combat is about. And for that to feel like it matters to the players, the solution has to be forceful, tight and not arbitrary. In a sense, Stunned: 5 makes most sense when combat-as-wargame isn't your focus of play.
I see that A5E SRD has it that
Dropping to 0 Hit Points Damage that reduces you to 0 hit points without killing you knocks you unconscious (see Conditions). Regaining any hit points ends this unconsciousness. Falling unconscious as a result of taking damage during an encounter is traumatic and inflicts a level of fatigue.
If you gain seven levels of fatigue, you are doomed...
A doomed creature dies at a time determined by the Narrator, or within 13 (2d12) hours.
Is that what you are using? Is there any other relevant text?
A5e splits exhaustion into two tracks: Fatigue (physical) and Strife (mental). If you have more than one level of either, you can't heal it without resting at a Haven. Basically a comfortable safe place like an inn where there's reasonable expectation that you won't be attacked.
So if a character acquires multiple levels of fatigue, it sucks because either they're hampered or they'll have to spend multiple days in a haven resting off the fatigue- so the players avoid getting it. There are other ways to get fatigue, but the most common is hitting 0hp in a combat.
In my only remaining 5e game (all my others are A5e) where we still have just the exhaustion track, I say hitting 0 requires a Con save DC15 or half the damage dealt to avoid gaining a level of exhaustion.
Creatures Reduced to 0HP and "Dying" gain Stunned: 5
So the moment you go down, you gain 5 rounds of the stunned condition. You're still unconscious and making death throws as usual, however, most things that bring you back to consciousness (e.g. healing) do not alleviate stunned. This rule has been incredible in play! Unattractive healing word-driven whack-a-mole game play is gone. Players take and cast cure wounds... sometimes even pre-emptively. Dramatic scenes ensue, as characters strive to save downed friends.
Five rounds may seem punitive and there is reasoning behind it. We first chose it based on the largest number of rounds a character could in theory go before either dying or stabilising. What we used to see - and found unattractive - was that a character would go down and be healed and thus prone on their next turn. Under our new rule, players really, strongly, do not want to go down. On top of capping at 6HD, we have seen the action-economy price of defensive buffs become worth paying. That's a huge change. As I said, we've also seen a far more active and strategic approach to healing. The "efficiency" of letting characters on low HP be dropped before healing has gone out the window (what I mean is that a character on say 5 HP takes 15... was "efficient" because they can only drop to 0.) Combats typically run something like 3-10 rounds, with 4-6 being the middle ground. Out for five means you're out for the combat... or maybe up in the last few rounds. (We're still playtesting this, and it might go down to Stunned: 4 or Stunned: 3 in the long run.)
The combination of advancement capped at 6th and Stunned: 5 at 0 HP is leading to very lively play in our sessions. We love the rule and expect to keep Stunned: X on 0HP/dying for the long term.
I understand where the need for "stunned 5" condition comes from, but it is pure anti-fun, when some one drops to 0, you might as well tell them to go home, session is over for them.
we run with modified exhaustion rules;
1 level is: -1 to all d20 rolls, -1 to AC and DC and -
5ft move speed per 2 exhaustion, levels round down.
dropping to 0 is 1 exhaustion level, every failed death save is 1 exhaustion level, you get rid of these levels after short rest or when you are healed over 50% of max HP(may rise that to 75%). So in one combat you may gather 5,6 or more exhaustion levels, you die when you would get 11th level.
problem is that every "hard CC" on PCs is extremely anti-fun, you want to penalize PCs for some actions and bad decisions, but still give them ability to keep having their actions available.
I understand where the need for "stunned 5" condition comes from, but it is pure anti-fun, when some one drops to 0, you might as well tell them to go home, session is over for them.
we run with modified exhaustion rules;
1 level is: -1 to all d20 rolls, -1 to AC and DC and -
5ft move speed per 2 exhaustion, levels round down.
dropping to 0 is 1 exhaustion level, every failed death save is 1 exhaustion level, you get rid of these levels after short rest or when you are healed over 50% of max HP(may rise that to 75%). So in one combat you may gather 5,6 or more exhaustion levels, you die when you would get 11th level.
problem is that every "hard CC" on PCs is extremely anti-fun, you want to penalize PCs for some actions and bad decisions, but still give them ability to keep having their actions available.
Yes, it's very much to do with group goals. I tend to use words like "satisfying" rather than "fun" to describe the play our group aims for. It can be "satisfying" to be down, speaking falteringly and reliant on your friends, even if (and sometimes especially when) that is not "fun".
For example, we recently had a case where a cleric went down in a fight rashly opted into by the group. In order to get out, a valued acolyte (NPC) died, and a ranger friend of the cleric sacrificed themselves (and subsequently died). It didn't feel necessarily fun, but the session write up by the cleric was moving. The player had felt impacted by the play.
I agree that it is reasonable to count being able to act as fun, and not being able to act as not-fun. I mean, play is about acting and it's in a sense anathema to that to be prevented from acting. Hence the meaning of the final S in characterising some spells as SOS. That creates an opportunity for tension, just as character progression creates tension with permanent death.
Yes, it's very much to do with group goals. I tend to use words like "satisfying" rather than "fun" to describe the play our group aims for. It can be "satisfying" to be down, speaking falteringly and reliant on your friends, even if (and sometimes especially when) that is not "fun".
For example, we recently had a case where a cleric went down in a fight rashly opted into by the group. In order to get out, a valued acolyte (NPC) died, and a ranger friend of the cleric sacrificed themselves (and subsequently died). It didn't feel necessarily fun, but the session write up by the cleric was moving. The player had felt impacted by the play.
I agree that it is reasonable to count being able to act as fun, and not being able to act as not-fun. I mean, play is about acting and it's in a sense anathema to that to be prevented from acting. Hence the meaning of the final S in characterising some spells as SOS. That creates an opportunity for tension, just as character progression creates tension with permanent death.
I agree that the outcome of the battle can be very satisfying in the end, I'm just worry about the journey towards the outcome.
One session we had, 3.5e
DM casted Cause fear on one PC, failed saving throw, DM rolled 4 on d4 on number of rounds feared.
That is 4 rounds running full speed away from battle, then 4 rounds running back towards battle.
8 rounds of doing absolutely nothing, guy sat there for 3 hours bored out of his skull while 4 other people actually played a game.
If there should be "hard CC" on players it should be 1 round max of duration.
Apologies for not cutting out the part I'm not responding to.
In the last campaign I played in, the DM used a rule I believe he got from one if the splatbooks.
Exhaustion levels each give -1 to all checks, rolls and saves (but not passive values). The penalty is cumulative.
To this, add:
Whenever you drop to zero, take one exhaustion level.
This was plenty enough discouragement from relying on "min maxing" yo-yo healing.
---
PS I fully realize this is predicated on staying with a pretty standard D&D use-violence-to-solve-problems approach. I fully agree a more severe penalty (and being stunned five rounds for being downed is very much a severe penalty) might be in order if you play in a style where you no longer actually expect players to use violence as their go-to tool to solve most game challenges.
What rest cadence did you observe with the accumulation of levels of exhaustion? Were you using the standard rules for relieving them (i.e. long rest)?
My personal observation however is that any combat-as-last-resort (or at least not combat-as-first-second-and-third-resort) approach is much much better used with pretty much any other ruleset than D&D. When we play D&D we buy into the game's strengths, which definitely includes the notion that any successful/high-level hero will have left a very long and very bloody trail of corpses. That's just how the game is written and not something we try to work against, because when we want something else, we simply use other rulesets. YMMV
That could be true, and the goal here is certainly to achieve it with D&D. That noted, which rulesets are you thinking of?
From a game design perspective it is interesting to see what one can achieve with D&D, and seeing as it is easy to find groups willing to play D&D, the game is worth the candle. EDIT I should add that to an extent I have in mind a bridging objective across modes of play.
I agree that the outcome of the battle can be very satisfying in the end, I'm just worry about the journey towards the outcome.
One session we had, 3.5e
DM casted Cause fear on one PC, failed saving throw, DM rolled 4 on d4 on number of rounds feared.
That is 4 rounds running full speed away from battle, then 4 rounds running back towards battle.
8 rounds of doing absolutely nothing, guy sat there for 3 hours bored out of his skull while 4 other people actually played a game.
If there should be "hard CC" on players it should be 1 round max of duration.
Taking your point to heart here, I want to add that Stunned: 5 is our starting point. We might end up at Stunned: 2 or 3.
Generally, I like to playtest the strong version of a rule, because that drives understanding. Strictly speaking, the action-economy price of Stunned: 5 over-values the "efficiency-of-dying" and negative aesthetics (of whack-a-mole). Pre-intervention the tempo-cost is a half-move* and the efficiency is likely no more than a score or so HP per combat. That looks to me like a more accurate pricing would be 2-3 lost turns rather than 5, depending on how you want to value the HP. The motivating difference is found in the outcome rather than the journy as you've noted.
*Character is prone. Ignoring the cost of the heal on the assumption it's required either way.
Taking your point to heart here, I want to add that Stunned: 5 is our starting point. We might end up at Stunned: 2 or 3.
Generally, I like to playtest the strong version of a rule, because that drives understanding. Strictly speaking, the action-economy price of Stunned: 5 over-values the "efficiency-of-dying" and negative aesthetics (of whack-a-mole). Pre-intervention the tempo-cost is a half-move* and the efficiency is likely no more than a score or so HP per combat. That looks to me like a more accurate pricing would be 2-3 lost turns rather than 5, depending on how you want to value the HP. The motivating difference is found in the outcome rather than the journy as you've noted.
*Character is prone. Ignoring the cost of the heal on the assumption it's required either way.
agree that whack-a-mole is horrible, negative HPs might also be a good fall back position, then again, healing spells should really be more powerful, even i last playtest they were doubled in efficiency.
next campaign we will try variant of healing spells:
Using negative HPs, still need to determine when you are dead-dead, maybe half max HP in the negative or your Con score plus your level or higher of those two.
Cure and Healing word combined into one spell:
1st level spell
Healing
Bonus action,
range 60ft
you heal target for 15HP, you can split that healing between target and yourself.
Upcasting: +10HP healed per spell level above 1st.
3rd level spell
Mass Healing
Bonus action
range 60ft
you heal up to 6 targets in range for 20HP
Upcasting: +5HP healed per target per spell level above 3rd
agree that whack-a-mole is horrible, negative HPs might also be a good fall back position, then again, healing spells should really be more powerful, even i last playtest they were doubled in efficiency.
next campaign we will try variant of healing spells:
Using negative HPs, still need to determine when you are dead-dead, maybe half max HP in the negative or your Con score plus your level or higher of those two.
None of the above, you make death saving throws as usual
Of those, I had in mind Max HP (because that is the rule implied by Instant Death) and you at 0 and below you are unconscious and make death saving throws as usual.
So if I have 28 max-HP I die at negative 28, if not before due to death saving throws. From 0-to-negative-27 I am unconscious.
I'm not fully following the necessity of these. I'd probably playtest the negative-HP rule, and then adjust healing spells if needed.
One practical problem for the design is that in order for fights to resolve in a reasonable amount of time at the table, healing must be weaker than damage. So if a damage spell at level two does 6d6 (scorching ray) x 65% (baseline chance to hit) = call it 14 damage, a heal spell at level two shouldn't be undoing two of those. That ranged attack costs an action, so the heal needs to also "pay" for the bonus action. That makes a standard cure wounds that costs an action and a move to undo probably 12 damage roughly correct. If it's over-costed, it's possibly just by that move, meaning making it ranged ought to be sufficient.
I'm not fully following the necessity of these. I'd probably playtest the negative-HP rule, and then adjust healing spells if needed.
One practical problem for the design is that in order for fights to resolve in a reasonable amount of time at the table, healing must be weaker than damage. So if a damage spell at level two does 6d6 (scorching ray) x 65% (baseline chance to hit) = call it 14 damage, a heal spell at level two shouldn't be undoing two of those. That ranged attack costs an action, so the heal needs to also "pay" for the bonus action. That makes a standard cure wounds that costs an action and a move to undo probably 12 damage roughly correct. If it's over-costed, it's possibly just by that move, meaning making it ranged ought to be sufficient.
unless you have a party full of healers, Healing does not compete with one Scorching ray, it competes with every other thing that you can throw at the party per round,
there is loads of "auto-attacks", rage, sneak attack bonuses, alchemical items and what not.
Point of buffing the spell is to make it worth the slot it is spent on.
And as most people find healing as boring, it is moved to Bonus action so your Action stays free to do something not boring, and as it is a spell you are still limited to Cantrip only spells as your action. Or to whack someone over the head with a mace.
Healing word is now loved/hated because it heals pitiful amount of damage, but still removed dying condition and those pesky failed death saves in one Bonus action.
What rest cadence did you observe with the accumulation of levels of exhaustion? Were you using the standard rules for relieving them (i.e. long rest)?
As opposed to the original unplayable Exhaustion rules, everyone can reasonably be expected to carry on with a -1 penalty.
If you're hit with -2 you really feel exposed and vulnerable, and given the chance, you would reasonably argue the group should stop and rest.
Getting -3 only happened once I think. In my memory we were so trounced that recuperating was a non-issue nobody objected to.
One advantage if you will, with a scheme like this, is how it inverts expectations and pressure to keep going. Normally the casters feel exhausted and in need of rest. But here the -1 penalties affect martial characters much more, since casters seldom actively roll dice (in D&D, the defender needs to save against magic, while the spell is assumed to work automatically).
I would say the rest cadence wasn't hugely impacted. The big win was that nobody ever suggested "let's hold off healing until the character is at zero"
