D&D 5E Death and 0 Max HP

Harzel · Jul 19, 2019

On the question of long resting while unconscious:

JeremyCrawford said:
A long rest requires you to have 1 hit point at the start. A short rest has no such requirement. Neither rest requires consciousness.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/818568908508495872

Maxperson · Jul 19, 2019

jaelis said:
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.

This is semantics. They are two different ways of saying essentially the same thing.

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.

There's a reason that rules lawyers often get kicked out of groups. Arguing semantics is a big part of it.

jaelis · Jul 19, 2019

Maxperson said:
This is semantics. They are two different ways of saying essentially the same thing.

That ... is one of the main things semantics is about? Deciding whether two phrases mean the same thing. So yes, I agree with the first statement. But if you reject semantics, what basis do you have for the second?

There's a reason that rules lawyers often get kicked out of groups. Arguing semantics is a big part of it.

Rules lawyering at the gaming table is rude. Discussing semantics on a forum is something you are welcome to take or leave, as you like.

DND_Reborn · Jul 19, 2019

Bite (Bat or Vampire Form Only): Melee Weapon Attack: +9 to hit, reach 5 ft., one willing creature, or a creature that is Grappled by the vampire, Incapacitated, or Restrained. Hit: 7 (1d6 + 4) piercing damage plus 10 (3d6) necrotic damage. The target's hit point maximum is reduced by an amount equal to the necrotic damage taken, and the vampire regains Hit Points equal to that amount. The reduction lasts until the target finishes a Long Rest. The target dies if this effect reduces its hit point maximum to 0. A humanoid slain in this way and then buried in the ground rises the following night as a Vampire Spawn under the vampire's control.

So, this is really about the idea that the effect is completed when the target dies vs. the effect remains until the target finishes a long rest or it is otherwise removed via magic somehow.

1. You believe the effect ends with the target's death, then things like Revivify and Raise Dead should work without any issue.
2. You believe the effect remains until removed by finishing a Long Rest, then Revivify and Raise Dead will fail unless Greater Restoration is somehow used.

Both are valid, neither has anything to do with grammar.

If the description read: "The reduction lasts until the target finishes a Long Rest or the target dies when this effect reduces its hit point maximum to 0." I would completely agree the effect ends when the target dies. But, it doesn't say that.

Again, nothing to do with semantics or grammar, no one is ignoring anything, it is just two valid interpretations of how the effect works (or stops working) once the target is dead.

Hriston · Jul 19, 2019

There are three effects of the vampire’s bite:
(a) the target takes 7 (1d6 +4) piercing damage plus 10 (3d6) necrotic damage,
(b) the target’s hit point maximum is reduced by an amount equal to the necrotic damage taken, and
(c) the vampire regains a number of hit points equal to the amount of the reduction.
All three of these effects happen immediately on a hit. I think everyone agrees on this.

The disagreement in this thread hinges on different understandings of the following two sentences:

1. The reduction lasts until the target finishes a Long Rest.
2. The target dies if this effect reduces its hit point maximum to 0.

Let’s take them one at a time.

I think the the meaning of the first sentence is clear. The reduction referred to is the reduction to the target’s hit point maximum that was caused by effect (b), and the purpose of the sentence is to say that the reduction is not permanent. Upon the target finishing a long rest, the target’s hit point maximum will automatically be restored to what it was before it was reduced. I don’t think this is meant to imply that the target’s hit point maximum can’t be restored by other methods, such as casting greater restoration on the target, for example.

The second sentence is the one which I think is causing the most trouble, but I think it’s clear that “this effect” refers to effect (b). Given that (b), like the other effects of the bite, happens immediately on a hit, the condition for the target dying can only be met at that time. I don’t see anything to imply that, once dead, the target can’t be brought back to life by any suitable means, such as casting revivify

DND_Reborn · Jul 20, 2019

Hriston said:
The second sentence is the one which I think is causing the most trouble, but I think it’s clear that “this effect” refers to effect (b). Given that (b), like the other effects of the bite, happens immediately on a hit, the condition for the target dying can only be met at that time. I don’t see anything to imply that, once dead, the target can’t be brought back to life by any suitable means, such as casting revivify

Yep, that is one of the valid resolutions and many people are in that camp. Of course, there are many who interpret it otherwise... Gotta love 5E!

Maxperson · Jul 20, 2019

dnd4vr said:
Yep, that is one of the valid resolutions and many people are in that camp. Of course, there are many who interpret it otherwise... Gotta love 5E!

Yep. Both ways are valid interpretations. You aren't going to convince those who think that semantical rules lawyering somehow constitutes absolute correctness and the other side is wrong, though.

jaelis · Jul 20, 2019

You misunderstand the point. I don’t think anyone is saying the semantic argument is “absolutely” correct. We are only saying it is semantically correct. I believe however that dnd4vr is arguing that both interpretations are in fact semantically correct. Or possibly that there is no distinction between semantics and other ways of thinking about it, I don’t really know.

DND_Reborn · Jul 20, 2019

jaelis said:
I believe however that dnd4vr is arguing that both interpretations are in fact semantically correct. Or possibly that there is no distinction between semantics and other ways of thinking about it, I don’t really know.

Oh, there are absolutely truths about semantic arguments, the problem is often different arguments can both be correct semantically.

Consider Shield Master, there was a thread a while back about whether the bonus action could be first or had to come after the attack action. The wording "If you take the Attack action on your turn" doesn't specify timing, only that the condition exists. The problem is, people argued that for the condition to exist, you must have already taken the attack action. Others argued you as long at it was taken at at some point in the turn, you did satisfy the condition. Both are understandable interpretations and true semantically.

Some rules are concrete and absolute due to their wording, others aren't. When the necrotic effect of the vampire's bit ends is one such case IMO, which again, is why I started the thread because it leads to how other things might or might not work. Hopefully that is clear enough.

Oofta · Jul 20, 2019

I just don't buy the "it's semantics" argument. Sorry. That's kind of like saying "it's just the rules."

Let's compare other ways of dying with one hit. Take instant death from massive damage.

"When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum."

To the vampire

"The target dies if this effect reduces its hit point maximum to 0. "

Both are worded as "the target dies if [condition]". I've never seen anyone claim that if you die from massive damage you can't be raised. We know you can be alive at 0 HP and there is no rule that says you can't be raised from the dead if you have 0 max HP. The vampire "curse" can't reduce you to 0 max HP because you can't be raised above 0 max HP.

Run it the way you want*, but to me it's not just "rules lawyering semantics".

*And if this happened in a game I'd briefly question it because I don't see it at all but go with the DM's call.