So, one of the things my DM was irritated with, was the ping-pong of players dropping to 0 HP, then healed to get right back up with no penalty. So, my DM issued that everytime someone drops to 0 HP, and then healed via magic and in combat will now gain a level of exhaustion. What are some thoughts about this? As a player I will follow what my DM thinks is best for the game, just wanted to know if this seems balanced enough to use at other tables?

The problem with this is that it can create a death spiral; resurrected characters come back more likely to go down, then come back with more exhaustion and it spirals.

The best way for a DM to handle wack-a-mole healing is to have the enemies behave appropriately intelligent. If an enemy sees someone get healed and get back up, they go in for the kill next time, or they target the healer.

Also, it might not be the case, but it feels like a players vs dm thing here, where it should be everyone working together to create a good story and have fun. Having players be healed in combat to stand back up isn't a bad thing, and there are only so many spell slots to do this with.

Also, even once healed, they are still prone until they use half their movement to stand.

Perhaps a reasonable house rule would focus on that. Something like creatures can't attack and stand on the same turn, or on the turn after you are stabilized you can either use your movement or your action, not both. Exhaustion mechanics is best saved for bringing back the dead, not healing the dying.

Things Davedamon said are true too. Freashly raised characters are that much closer to 1 turn kill. And healers should draw the attention of any creature with more than 5 INT.

I don’t like it. I’ve always thought of bringing someone back from 0 as a viable tactic. It’s the main way I heal with my bard as the secondary healer with healing word.

Quote from CozmoTheGrey >>

I don’t like it. I’ve always thought of bringing someone back from 0 as a viable tactic. It’s the main way I heal with my bard as the secondary healer with healing word.

 That's because it is the best way to use a healing spell. Healing less than 10 HP is pointless in almost every situation where the target is not at 0.

Yep

I think it's ok...ish. I can see a level of exhaustion after two or more revives in a single combat. Repeatedly being pulled back from the brink should take something out of you. Ask for it take effect after multiple revives not after the first.

I've seen some house rule 3 downs in a single combat equal permanent death so levels of exhaustion ain't so bad.

May I ask what may be the cause of players frequently being downed? Suicidal PCs, bad rolls, extra tough encounters, etc?...

I think I'd go back to my LARPing experience and end up having location HP as well as normal HP.

The body gets divided into Left Arm, Right Arm, Torso, head, Left Leg, Right Leg

Effectively you take your normal HP total and divide it by 3 (rounding down to nearest whole point) and thats ho mcuch damage each location can take.

When a player gets hit you roll a d6 to determine where the blow landed and mark off hp form the location and total hp, if an arm or leg is reduced to zero hp it is broken, if it is reduced to twice the location hp then it is severed. If the torso or head are reduced to zero HP the player is knocked unconsious, and again if reduced to minus its location hp it is severed resulting in the death of the player.

Healers have to then say when they use helaing spells which part of the body they are targeting, gives a bit more triage roleplay and means players have to be a bit more careful. To make it fair the DM can also apply that to boss monsters as well so players can actively target a body part. It also means players can give more imput when describing their injuries, such as "My left arm is obviously broken and I've three large slashes bleeding profusely from by back" rather than just saying "I'm (expletie deleted)!"

It may sound complicated but it is surprisingly easy to do but dies need a special characte sheet to mark the locational damage.

@Fattsgalore Examples are one or both of our Barbarians charging into a large group of Yuan-Ti, or just bad rolls on our side, yet good rolls on the enemy side.

I think your DM is getting annoyed they have to pull their punches as not to flat out kill the party, and its ruining some of their fun. It's obvious this house rule isnt meant to be added difficulty, but punishment.

I'd talk to the DM and see if that's the case. I'd also talk to the barbarians about tactics.

I'd first try things that are within the rules before changing them. Have the weapons or shield that unconscious character had on them get taken by the bad guys, or have the unconscious player get attacked. Nothing saying he can't keep hitting them when they are down, just 2 hits and all the death saves are gone. Focus fire anyone healing helps as well, but ya don't want to kill your players all the time. No fun there.

Quote from BioWizard >>

That's because it is the best way to use a healing spell. Healing less than 10 HP is pointless in almost every situation where the target is not at 0.

 

This right there is probably the #1 thing that would make me consider an "exhaustion level at 0 hp" house rule. The idea that it's better to let someone go unconscious rather than healing them and keep them in the battle is unrealistic and wrecks the verisimilitude that DnD is otherwise pretty good at generating.

I'm not saying that game-mechanic-wise you're wrong. I just hate it when "good tactics" means "completely the opposite of how any normal character would really act in that situation."

It's like the post a few days ago about the goof-ball who had his 25 hp character take a 300 ft jump off a cliff because the cleric at the bottom could save his life with "spare the dying" and then a cure wounds spell. Again, maybe yes, the mechanics would let you do that (although not really, in that case), but no, a character would never actually do that if being RPed at all.

 The problem comes down to the amount of healing never compares to the amount of damage for the same cost.

Cure wounds heals 7.5-9.5 HP on average (depending on spellcasting ability). Inflict wounds does 16.5 damage on average.

Even free/unlimited cantrips and normal weapon attacks do more damage than healing spells that use slots.

That is the core of the reason why it is more efficient to save heals until they are down. If they have 10 HP, and you heal 8, then they take 20 damage, you accomplished nothing. If they are at 0, you heal 8, then they get a turn before taking 20 damage, you effectively increased your team action economy, saved that PC from 1-2 failed death saves, and kept the rest of the party from taking that 20 damage instead.

But if it were possible to heal more than the damage you take, I could support punishing hitting 0 harder.

I see no issue with the heals for reasons already described. A new suggestion is a character can only be healed back from dying a number of times equal to their Con modifier, minimum 1. After that they only stabilise instead of healing. OR, if you're intent on using exhaustion, then use the con mod limit as how many times they can be healed from dying before they start accruing exhaustion levels.

The only way I would ever consider this is if the character loses all those levels of exhaustion as soon as combat ends, that way it creates tension during the fight and the players wont run back to town afterwards.  Even then I would have to see it in action a few times before I would make it official.

That is the core of the reason why it is more efficient to save heals until they are down. If they have 10 HP, and you heal 8, then they take 20 damage, you accomplished nothing. If they are at 0, you heal 8, then they get a turn before taking 20 damage, you effectively increased your team action economy, saved that PC from 1-2 failed death saves, and kept the rest of the party from taking that 20 damage instead.

Yes, I understand why it works in the tactics of the game mechanics. I just don't like how it plays out RP-wise. I am quite sure I have never read a book or seen a movie in which a character on purpose let another character go unconscious and THEN healed him, rather than healing him up to keep him conscious and in the fight. The fact that it's actually better to let someone go to 0 and heal rather than healing while still up is, IMO, a design flaw.

Not one I'm likely to go to the mat to fight about. But it's a flaw nonetheless, IMO.

Quote from BioWizard >>

That is the core of the reason why it is more efficient to save heals until they are down. If they have 10 HP, and you heal 8, then they take 20 damage, you accomplished nothing. If they are at 0, you heal 8, then they get a turn before taking 20 damage, you effectively increased your team action economy, saved that PC from 1-2 failed death saves, and kept the rest of the party from taking that 20 damage instead.

Yes, I understand why it works in the tactics of the game mechanics. I just don't like how it plays out RP-wise. I am quite sure I have never read a book or seen a movie in which a character on purpose let another character go unconscious and THEN healed him, rather than healing him up to keep him conscious and in the fight. The fact that it's actually better to let someone go to 0 and heal rather than healing while still up is, IMO, a design flaw.

Not one I'm likely to go to the mat to fight about. But it's a flaw nonetheless, IMO.

 Right. I agree. Just wanted to make sure we agreed the flaw is the game mechanics and not the strategies that are used because of them.

Yes... it's a flawed game mechanic.

But I certainly hope that my players are not going to try and use that to have their characters act on the mechanic rather than RPing what their character would actually do. And they will trust that I, as DM, will reward that they are playing against the efficiency of a bad mechanic and into the RP of their character, by giving them some benefit, like an Inspiration point (which then might be used to survive the battle). Or I might just be inclined to spontaneously generate some extra healing potions in the treasure chest down the hall or something, again, to reward them for RPing their character properly in spite of a bad mechanic.

Quote from BioWizard >>

Yes... it's a flawed game mechanic.

But I certainly hope that my players are not going to try and use that to have their characters act on the mechanic rather than RPing what their character would actually do. And they will trust that I, as DM, will reward that they are playing against the efficiency of a bad mechanic and into the RP of their character, by giving them some benefit, like an Inspiration point (which then might be used to survive the battle). Or I might just be inclined to spontaneously generate some extra healing potions in the treasure chest down the hall or something, again, to reward them for RPing their character properly in spite of a bad mechanic.

 Game Mechanic = Laws of Physics

Using the laws of physics to your advantage is smart, so if you are playing a smart character and use game Mechanic to your advantage your are RPing.  With healing and even restoring life so prevelant in a world would make people act very different than people do in real life.  Sounds like your trying to apply real life actions and consequences to your game, in which consequences are actually not nearly as severe. 

Don't get me wrong the game mechanic is flawed, but I don't think playing to the mechanic is flawed.