D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
It doesn't say you can't, and wizards who use the lich ritual can certainly take actions after they've died. I think we have enough evidence to support that you can take actions with characters that are in the dead state.
No, see, once you're a lich - you're no longer 'dead'.
You are now an animate undead who is ... alive? ... either way - you're no longer dead - because dead means you've got neg bloodied HP or have just failed 3 death saves. The lich would have 0 failed death saves and is no longer at neg bloodied HP - thus, not dead yet (again).
__________________ Wait, he did what?!
Yes, he burned down the reinforced adamantine gates, sir. We don't know how, but all indicators seem to support that claim.
[No fortification is safe from a psychopath with pet hellfire engines - the PC's know of at least 3]
you're no longer dead - because dead means you've got neg bloodied HP or have just failed 3 death saves.
Well, if thats the case then the ritual puts you at neg bloodied HP and having failed 3 death saves since the first that that it does is "you die."
Although this brings up another question I've wondered about... what happens if you let your PCs get their hands on this? Being a lich gives decent benefits at little to no cost.
Well, if thats the case then the ritual puts you at neg bloodied HP and having failed 3 death saves since the first that that it does is "you die."
What's your point? You die, then get reanimated/revived as a lich. I fail to see a problem here - liches are undead.
Quote:
Although this brings up another question I've wondered about... what happens if you let your PCs get their hands on this? Being a lich gives decent benefits at little to no cost.
Hmmm ... that would be problematic balance-wise, I think, unless the entire party underwent the ritual, or otherwise gained benefits to equalize the power level. If that happened, then I'd consider the party being effectively a couple levels higher for making encounters.
It is somewhat expensive when the party could first gain access to it - I'd be slightly concerned about the party copying it into their ritual books and then attempting to sell it off.
It would almost certainly induce a substantial change in how most npcs interacted with them. Usually, this change will not be for the better.
They'd almost certainly get refused entrance in many places, and get undesirable attention from the churches and religious orders of those deities opposed to undead, and possibly unwanted attention from the church/religious orders of the Raven Queen as well, depending on how they acted.
And, of course, if they draw undesirable attention to themselves from followers of Orcus, they may find themselves without phylacteries anymore.
__________________ Wait, he did what?!
Yes, he burned down the reinforced adamantine gates, sir. We don't know how, but all indicators seem to support that claim.
[No fortification is safe from a psychopath with pet hellfire engines - the PC's know of at least 3]
Why I started this weird argument about dead characters
The advent of exception based rule design has resulted in people treating the *lack of an exception* interchangeably with actual explicitly stated rules. So an ochre jelly can be knocked prone, since it is not explicitly exempted from being knocked prone. Unlike Tide of Iron, Pressing Strike has no limits based on enemy size, so a halfling barbarian can use it to knock the primordial Mual Tar (gargantuan) around "at will".
My point was that lack of an exception should not carry the same weight as a written rule. Perhaps the designers hoped the 4e paradigm of exception based design would allow them to avoid the legalistic 3e Define Everything trap, but in a burst of awe inspiring irony, we have entered bizarro-land where counter-intuitional interpretations of the rules are considered RAW based solely on the fact that the rules DO NOT define precisely how they function. I think that deconstructing the rules in this way leads primarily to confusion and weird (if sometimes funny) conclusions.
The designers did not explicitly state that dead characters cannot be healed, so should we believe they can then be healed? If we say yes, then what if the character's hp rises above their negative bloodied total as a result? While no rules are given for what dead characters can (or cannot) do, there are rules for dying characters. And per RAW a character with negative hp over their [negative] bloodied total is clearly dying. Thus one more hp of healing and they would no longer be dying, but per RAW, also be conscious and above zero hit points. Yes, they would still be dead, but since dead isn't defined, we really can't assume what it means for the character. And since they are now conscious, we have lots of rules about neat things they can then do.
Alternately, we can accept that the designers were human and that we cannot treat the silences of the rulebooks with the same seriousness as the places where they are explicit. We can then decide that Dead characters behave like dead people in the real world (with the exception that they sometimes come back through defined channels like Raise Dead). Lack of an exception can be seen as a necessary but not in itself sufficient reason to accept a particular conclusion: for instance whether dying characters are also bloodied. Lack of an exception here means that it is likely that the dying character is bloodied, but not conclusive in the same way as if the rule book said something like "once below zero hit points but above their negative bloodied amount a character is both bloodied and dying." Now maybe you find the idea that dying characters are bloodied obvious and common sense - I guarantee that there are many out here who disagree with you. Your or my particular sense of what is logical or realistic do not make lack of an exception the same as RAW.
*wince* I really wish WotC would do an article explaining exception-based design to folks more clearly, so it would stop coming up in these arguments.
Quote:
So an ochre jelly can be knocked prone, since it is not explicitly exempted from being knocked prone. Unlike Tide of Iron, Pressing Strike has no limits based on enemy size, so a halfling barbarian can use it to knock the primordial Mual Tar (gargantuan) around "at will".
Both correct, yes. Absolutely true and right with the world.
Quote:
My point was that lack of an exception should not carry the same weight as a written rule.
Except, that it _is_ a written rule. For example, a power knocks someone prone. That is the rule. The creature in question has no exception to prone, so it goes prone. Or is pushed, etc.
Characters who are knocked to negative bloodied die and may come back with Raise Dead or other powers. Otherwise we're assumed to know the effects of being dead. And, really, I think we do. The rules are _vague_ about what happens, but the rules are not vague about pressing strike, powers that knock prone _or_ bloodied. We know exactly what those do.
That doesn't make house rules to make the game work the way you prefer inherently bad - they just require that your players also want those house rules and/or that you counterbalance such changes appropriate. It also doesn't mystically either
A) morph the rules _as written_, not to be confused with the rules we play with and enjoy in our home games, into something else to suit your preferences
B) make rules vague or 'lacking an exception' because you disagree with their sensibility
Keterys I'm sorry to say that you completely ignored the point of this thread. You say that it IS a written rule. Well how about this:
Lay on hands target is defined as one creature. It does not give an exception for living creature, it just says creature. Also the creature does not have to spend a healing surge, it just GETS healed. There is no exception saying that the dead cannot be healed.
Those ARE written rules. The fact that they don't make sense to you based on other areas or ideas in the game is irrelevant based upon your own logic.
What me and Subrosas are saying is that at some point exceptions being written in becomes unnecessary. Where we all decide these unnecessary exceptions lie is a matter of personal common sense and logic. There will be discrepancies between many. But the fact of the matter is, if you TRULY want to go by raw and nothing else, the dead can be healed with lay on hands.
Obviously the other thread was MORE ambiguous and less ridiculous than this idea taken raw, but we still believe that it is an unnecessary-to-write-in exception to the bloodied rule. You can disagree, thats fine. But you can't point to the rule and say it can't have exceptions unless they are written in.
Maybe you missed my response that the rules do allow you to heal someone who is dead. Those heals, however, do not bring them back from the dead, because the rules say nothing about doing so.
So, then you're left with wondering what a dead character at full hp is like... and as far as I can tell by most definitions of 'dead' that just means they're still a corpse. And that's as far as the rules go. They decided not to, say, explicitly define that you couldn't act while dead because they assumed you'd figure it out.
Which brings us back to me pointing out that you can and should interpret the rules as needed, such as figuring out DCs to take actions not defined well by the rules, making rules to allow cool things, flexing DMG p42, changing the rules when you need for the fun and coolness of the table.
But that doesn't change a clearly written rule somehow. If you want a creature to be immune to prone it takes two whole words to make it happen. If you want a power to not push a creature, it takes a few more words but it's easy to do. Those rules exist for a reason and changing them on players by whim can hurt feelings and create a situation in which players are unsure of whether things will work, feel unfairly put upon, or just don't bother trying things. That's not good. Figure out changes you want in advance and decide them, don't just make changes on the fly. Pressing Strike can't push because the halfling is too small, but the Invoker's slide 1 at-will is fine? Why - because it makes more sense to the DM? What, the halfling can't stab the giant in the foot and make it stumble back and the invoker's sun strike is equally as powerful at moving tiny creatures as gargantuan? Make rule changes to make the game more fun, or make them in advance so your players know.
Now, I'll concede that the bloodied argument is slightly less cut and dry than the whole prone an ooze or push a primordial argument. But only slightly, and I do wonder how much is wishful thinking because of Consecrated Ground. Thankfully there are very few powers that are impacted - things like powers (or a dragonborn paragon path) that work only while you're bloodied and turn off when you're no longer bloodied for example.
Now, healing the dead might not be intended to work, but frankly it's immaterial. You could make an argument that it doesn't work because a corpse is an object, and no longer a creature, which removes it from target selection... but why would you care? Healing the dead has literally no effect on the game.
unless of course, if dying didn't stop at death. So once dead you are dying, dead and bloodied. There are no rules stating this isn't so, and dying continues as long as you are below 0 hp. Part of the dying condition (or state, or situation etc.) is that any heals immediately bring you to 1 hp and you are conscious. So now you are conscious, dead, prone, and bloodied, but not dying.
EDIT: and possibly according to logic still just an object. HOORAY! I've found a way to play as an intelligent item according to raw!
And again... still dead. You're not helping your case at arguing that the rules are flawed in another area by citing the rules on being dead.
The rules for being dead are basically:
1) You _might_ not have to roll up a new character
2) Raise Dead can be used to bring you back from the dead
3) Some other power might also be able to bring you back from the dead
There are then a few examples, like in most epic destinies, potions of Life, Revenant Ankhs, etc.
But still dead. Which, if you're playing in the Ghostwalk setting, might indeed mean you can cheerfully keep on chatting with the group.
I'm helping my case plenty. By showing you how ridiculous your idea of raw being god can be.
So we have a character who by raw rules, is dead, conscious, moving around. And you seem to think that's reasonable.
On the other hand bloodied ends at 0 hp. It seems as though you are completely against this as a possibility.
Again here's my point. The rules of this game HAVE to incorporate an amount of logic and reasoning outside of what's written. And this has to happen in order to get a reasonable understanding of what the rules ARE. The rules as written is not the same thing as the WORDS as written.
This whole thread is about understanding that when you don't do this, things get stupid quick.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on how much you're helping your case, but I'd suggest that you certainly haven't shown that someone who is dead is conscious or moving around by RAW, so attempting to use it as an example of how RAW shouldn't be observed is a bit far fetched.
A rules question was asked - are you Bloodied at 0 or lower. It as a fact that by RAW, you are. Some people believed it worked otherwise, and those people are more than entitled to play differently in their home games. I'd find it mighty odd if people played D&D without ever changing any rules, myself.
Now, is it intended that bloodied not apply at 0 or lower? It's often unclear what the designers intended - and in this case I'd not be surprised if different designers had _different intentions_. It is certainly the case that there are monster and PC abilities that assume bloodied applies and end up working oddly if you rule otherwise. Easily addressed, mind you.
Put another way - I use several house rules, such as a rod of reaving not actually killing a minion automatically. When someone asks on a forum 'Hey, does a Rod of Reaving actually kill a minion?' I answer either 'Yes' or 'Yes, which is one reason of dozens that I use <this house rule>' or something similar.
This isn't a case of 'hey, no bad wrong fun, not allowed'. There is a simple rule. You're presenting it incorrectly. Done.
Arguing that a mathematic characteristic of a character should be subject to DM fiat is ludicrous - do halfling paladins with 14 Con have less surges than dragonborn paladins with 14 Con, because halflings are wimpier looking? You're simply not arguing about an aspect of the rules that _should_ be up to DM fiat, like 'hey what happens if I knock the hell hound into the river, will it put out his flame aura while he's in it?' or 'Hey, I want to try and lightning bolt the rock face over there to cause an avalanche... how?'
Cause boy, those are great things for a DM call. Not "I'm at 0 hp of 78 and have resist 5 until I'm no longer bloodied... so are my hp still below 39?" "No, 0 is not lower than 39, sorry."
The rules also don't say that you can't walk vertically into midair... I think that there are some things that are assumed to be simply understood that the meaning is clear, such as when your character dies, it means he's dead.
Quote:
Death: When you take damage that reduces your current hit points to your bloodied value expressed as a negative number, your character dies.
So death is defined by the conditions that cause death, and the result of this condition is that your character dies. Before death is Dying, and during dying is unconsciousness, which is explicitly stated as a condition that means you can perform no actions.
But as far as games go, don't we all know what it means to die?
Pointing out something is not forbidden doesn't mean it's legal. You could also say that nothing in RAW forbids characters reincarnating instantly at level 30 and with the ability to overrule the GM.
If you want to quibble about what it means to die, then you might as well debate every single term in the game that is not defined explicitly that are assumed to be understood. If you claim that something is legal because it's not forbidden, then that's an infinite number of possibilities.
The rules also don't say you can't use a D20 that has a 20 printed on every side does it?
Is there a rule about weighted dice?
Is there a rule that says that players can't pass through walls as they wish?
Is there a rule that says you have to play with someone who makes ridiculous RAW arguments?
__________________ Law's Game Style: Storyteller 83%, Tactician 75%, Specialist 67%, Method Actor 58%, Power Gamer 33%, Casual Gamer 25%, Butt-Kicker 17%
Let's play along. Sure you can be conscious again, but you're also still dead, so no actions.
Well, but that is assuming, that dead means you cannot take actions. I havn't found a dead condition in the book, however, so it doesn't have any effect to be dead (it's just a keyword).
Bye
Thanee
__________________
In our world, immortality is not for the living. The legend lives on!
In Memoriam Dave Arneson ( April 7th, 2009) & Gary Gygax ( March 4th, 2008).
Wondering what the Dungeon Tiles are like? Take a look here (up to DU5 Sinister Woods).
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on how much you're helping your case, but I'd suggest that you certainly haven't shown that someone who is dead is conscious or moving around by RAW, so attempting to use it as an example of how RAW shouldn't be observed is a bit far fetched.
Respectfully, you have yet to show that the dead aren't conscious or moving around per RAW. The onus is on you in this case.
You can't pick and choose - if you claim that *logically* the dead can't be doing that (i.e. common usage), then I can just as easily claim that there is something called "mass" that makes a halfling barbarian overpowering a gargantuan primordial and forcibly moving the primordial around at least as unlikely as a dead person getting up and dancing after being healed.
In either case we are injecting our opinions into RAW rather than reading what is actually written.
I'm done with this conversation. But I would just like to inform you that if someone said this to my face I would probably hit them. I find it extremely offensive.
Respectfully, you have yet to show that the dead aren't conscious or moving around per RAW. The onus is on you in this case.
It is? Do I have to prove that you can walk straight up into the sky too, since N0man brought that up?
Quote:
You can't pick and choose - if you claim that *logically* the dead can't be doing that (i.e. common usage), then I can just as easily claim that there is something called "mass" that makes a halfling barbarian overpowering a gargantuan primordial and forcibly moving the primordial around at least as unlikely as a dead person getting up and dancing after being healed.
Unfortunately I _can_ pick and choose. In the case of someone being dead I can say 'The system says you've died, and you can either roll up a new character or get raised from the dead.' whereas for the other I can say 'the system says he's pushed 1 square and his stat block doesn't say it doesn't work, so there's no exception to the rule'
Quote:
In either case we are injecting our opinions into RAW rather than reading what is actually written.
No... we're not. In one case, there is a rule "You're dead" that is, perhaps, poorly defined, though it does list that you can either make a new character, get raised, or use some other power to come back from death, so at least there's guidance... and in the other case there's a rule that you're pushed, and a great number of powers and creatures that would stop that push, that you're choosing to break the rule as written on... and breaking that rule is allowable for a DM, but it should be done in advance, such as by altering the monster stat block or power appropriately, or making a generic campaign house rule. At the time you make the campaign house rule, you can also figure out if it applies to things like sun strike and diabolic grasp, and if the size of the caster matters too, since I'd be curious.
Quote:
Care to provide your interpretation rather than empty snark?
I'm not intending it to be snark. I honestly wish that WotC would do an honest to goodness article about it. Exception-based design means you have a rule, then you have 'class, race, feat, power, and monster in the D&D game lets you break the rules in some way.' (PHB p1). For example, if you don't want a Primordial to be pushed around you give him Immune forced movement or a version of the dwarf Stand Your Ground. If you don't want Pressing Strike to have an unfettered push, you decide to add the line from Tide of Iron to it. If you generically want size to matter for all forced movement, you make a house rule that forced movement is reduced by 1 per size category difference, perhaps with a restriction that has it only apply to weapon attacks. There all kinds of ways to get the result you want by making an exception to the rule.
Deciding based on whim, at the table, however you want, is DM fiat... and DM fiat has its place in the game, but has little to do with interpreting the rules. For example, last night there was a trap in the module that teleported someone in a square that was activated by a lever - and the players pushed an enemy into it thinking it would activate, but by its own rules it wouldn't... so a second of DM fiat later, I let it work, because it was more fun. Similarly, when the very last monster in a fight was perched on a ledge and got critical-ed by the paladin's throwing shield and knocked off that ledge, I ruled he fell and broke his neck even though I don't think it was even bloodied by the attack... DM fiat making the game more fun is all well and good.
But again, I'm not going to argue that the _rule_ is that throwing shield criticals break necks, or that criticals on the last creature in a fight one-shot it or any number of other things. I might say 'Well, the game can get slow by RAW in the cleanup phase of a fight, so I'd suggest letting criticals kill things or starting to treat certain enemies like minions, or really doing anything that helps keep an exciting pace for _your_ game'
Quote:
I'm done with this conversation. But I would just like to inform you that if someone said this to my face I would probably hit them. I find it extremely offensive.
If true, and I suspect you're exagerrating, you place far too great importance over game discussion (it's never worth hitting someone over it, ever). That aside, perhaps it means something else where you're from but it's a standard colloquialism or turn of phrase, such as 'Cause boy, is it wet out'. A quick glance at google gives pages of results in use such as anyofthefollowinglinks - you may need to search for "cause boy" to find the reference though. It was not an insult.
So, anyhow - if you want being dead to mean that people can still walk around, talk, do whatever, go ahead and do that for your game. The game is fairly silent on the _precise_ effects of being dead - though I suspect that if a DM allowed enemies who were slain to continue to act unhindered it would have some... profound... effects on the game It would certainly make creatures with auras that healed a bit more scary.
Similarly, if you want bloodied to mean that it goes from Half hp to 1 hp, go ahead. No police are going to show up at your door to argue about it. Well, I hope. Maybe there are some police _really_ into D&D.
Fwiw, I myself might adopt that practice if I don't think it affects any PC abilities. The trick is I have the nagging suspicion it does... I also wonder if it creates an odd case where a creature has the ability to not fall unconscious while dying, so is still going around acting but doesn't count as bloodied for all those abilities that care.
Last edited by keterys; 28th June 2009 at 11:02 PM..
I apologize. I had just woken up and read it as you calling me "boy" as in: "Boy, go fetch me my damned slippers" To be fair though, typing a turn of phrase that generally has an auditory element to it (such as sarcasm) will often lead to misunderstandings.
It would certainly make creatures with auras that healed a bit more scary.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
