D&D 5E Death and 0 Max HP

jaelis · Jul 18, 2019

Maxperson said:
Only because they didn't consider this corner case. The reduces portion is not really relevant as it is only there to let us know that 0 max hit points from the necrotic damage causes instant death. All the conditions for death are still present. You can "rules lawyer" the technicality all you want. I'm going to go with RAI.

This is what I mean. Clearly there is a way of thinking about the vampire effect that makes sense to you, and you are willing to flex the wording of the rule to conform to that idea. Which is really totally fine, and I have no objection to your way of thinking about it. But most of the rest of us are discussing what the rule as written actually says, and confusing the two approaches is just frustrating for everyone.

Hriston · Jul 18, 2019

Maxperson said:
The rule is that if at 0 max hit points due to being drained by the vampire's necrotic damage, you die.

Not really. It’s more like, “If your hit point maximum being reduced by an amount equal to the necrotic damage taken reduces your hit point maximum to 0, you die.”

So 3d6 are rolled, generating a numerical amount of necrotic damage, and that number is subtracted from your current hit point maximum. If the difference is a non-positive number, you die.

Oofta · Jul 18, 2019

Maxperson said:
Only because they didn't consider this corner case. The reduces portion is not really relevant as it is only there to let us know that 0 max hit points from the necrotic damage causes instant death. All the conditions for death are still present. You can "rules lawyer" the technicality all you want. I'm going to go with RAI.

As a DM you can change or ignore rules all you want. So in your game you get to decide when part of a rule is relevant or not. It does make it easier if you can just ignore things that don't match your conclusion. Have a good one.

DND_Reborn · Jul 18, 2019

No one is changing the rules or ignoring them. They are all interpretations of the rules and are all valid. I am not trying to cast Revivify on this "dead horse", but I think some people should understand that there is no right or wrong answer here and rules lawyering doesn't work because... well, it is still all about interpreting the rules.

Anyway, our DM is informed me that HIS interpretation means the following for us:

1. Revivify won't work. Yep. Vampire sucking stopped it. A character is dead. Boo-hoo. Hopefully we can bring her back. In order to do that...
2. Greater Restoration is needed. But...
3. Due to Gentle Repose, Revivify can work, or Raise Dead or greater magic, if cast in conjunction with Greater Restoration.

So, once we find a cleric who can cast Greater Restoration, our Bard can cast the Revivify. If we find two high-level clerics, we will go with Raise Dead since our house-rule on Revivify makes it uncertain.

Maxperson · Jul 18, 2019

dnd4vr said:
No one is changing the rules or ignoring them. They are all interpretations of the rules and are all valid. I am not trying to cast Revivify on this "dead horse", but I think some people should understand that there is no right or wrong answer here and rules lawyering doesn't work because... well, it is still all about interpreting the rules.

This.

jaelis · Jul 18, 2019

dnd4vr said:
No one is changing the rules or ignoring them. They are all interpretations of the rules and are all valid.

What do you mean exactly? I agree in the sense that it is the right and responsibility of the DM (and players) to use the rules in a way that works for them. If that means ignoring something that doesn't work for you, then that is absolutely a "valid" thing to do.

On the other hand, the words in the rules say something. English is ambiguous, so often the same words can be interpreted in different, but valid ways. But not all ways are "valid" in that sense. Claiming that "The target dies if this effect reduces its hit point maximum to 0" has the same English meaning as "The target dies if this effect has reduced its hit point maximum to 0" is, IMO, wrong, and disputing that is a matter of grammar not interpretation.

Yes that is rules lawyering, and if you don't care about that kind of argument, the right response is "whatever, I don't care." But if you tell a rules lawyer "No, you're wrong," well duh they are going to argue with you about it.

DND_Reborn · Jul 18, 2019

jaelis said:
What do you mean exactly? I agree in the sense that it is the right and responsibility of the DM (and players) to use the rules in a way that works for them. If that means ignoring something that doesn't work for you, then that is absolutely a "valid" thing to do.

On the other hand, the words in the rules say something. English is ambiguous, so often the same words can be interpreted in different, but valid ways. But not all ways are "valid" in that sense. Claiming that "The target dies if this effect reduces its hit point maximum to 0" has the same English meaning as "The target dies if this effect has reduced its hit point maximum to 0" is, IMO, wrong, and disputing that is a matter of grammar not interpretation.

Yes that is rules lawyering, and if you don't care about that kind of argument, the right response is "whatever, I don't care." But if you tell a rules lawyer "No, you're wrong," well duh they are going to argue with you about it.

No one is ignoring anything, they are just interpreting it differently.

Rules lawyering is about arguing concrete rules. There is nothing concrete in this scenario to argue about. If you don't believe someone else's interpretation of how something works is valid then that is your issue, especially when other people understand and agree with the that as a valid interpretation.

And while I might not agree with someone's interpretation, and even argue against it to try to "win them over" to mine, I will never tell someone they are flat out "wrong." Some rules in 5E are concrete, but many effects, scenarios, etc. lead to situations where interpretation is required and this was done by design.

jaelis · Jul 18, 2019

So if I roll an 11, add my +4 bonus, and claim to have a result of 17, your response would be, "that's your interpretation"?

But that is probably not fair, you say

Rules lawyering is about arguing concrete rules. There is nothing concrete in this scenario to argue about.

So the disagreement seem not to be whether concrete rules exist, but whether grammar is concrete? If I say "the sun will rise yesterday" is that wrong?

DND_Reborn · Jul 18, 2019

jaelis said:
So if I roll an 11, add my +4 bonus, and claim to have a result of 17, your response would be, "that's your interpretation"?

But that is probably not fair, you say

So the disagreement seem not to be whether concrete rules exist, but whether grammar is concrete? If I say "the sun will rise yesterday" is that wrong?

If you want to do math that way, that is up to you, but I hope you have someone else do your taxes! But hey, if your table is okay with it then kuddos. Otherwise, you're just being silly.

We aren't discussing grammar unless you want to return to your statements. Of course, that is pointless since you continue to ignore the idea that the effect can only be removed by a long rest or powerful magic as per the vampire description. That is where the interpretation comes in.

To you, the effect is gone when the character is killed by the initial reduction to 0 max hp, to our group the reduction remains--preventing Revivify, until removed. Again, both are valid and neither has anything to do with grammar.

jaelis · Jul 18, 2019

dnd4vr said:
If you want to do math that way, that is up to you, but I hope you have someone else do your taxes! But hey, if your table is okay with it then kuddos. Otherwise, you're just being silly.

We aren't discussing grammar unless you want to return to your statements. Of course, that is pointless since you continue to ignore the idea that the effect can only be removed by a long rest or powerful magic as per the vampire description. That is where the interpretation comes in.

To you, the effect is gone when the character is killed by the initial reduction to 0 max hp, to our group the reduction remains--preventing Revivify, until removed. Again, both are valid and neither has anything to do with grammar.

To me, this sounds like you are saying "The rule says that the the effect can only be removed with a long rest. But grammar is not relevant for understanding what the rule says."

I can't comprehend this at all. How can you know what the rule says without thinking about the language that the rule uses?

I can understand saying "The grammar of that particular sentence isn't important because I'm thinking about the bigger picture of how the rule works." (I think that is where maxperson is at.) And I can understand saying "The language of that rule does not mean what you think it means." (Blue and I had an argument along those lines.) But I don't understand saying "I am basing my interpretation on this rule, but I don't need to analyze the language of the rule to do so."