D&D 5E Death and 0 Max HP

jaelis · Jul 15, 2019

Blue said:
One concept from an earlier edition of D&D was specific overrides general. If that's the case, the specific of the spell returning at 1 HP should overcome the general rule that HPs can not exceed max HPs.

I think that's a sound argument, but debatable because it is a bit of a tangle of specific and general rules. (For instance, cure wounds can't heal you above your hp max, but that is due to the general rule.)

But for the purpose of this argument, I'm willing to assume that the hp max reduction takes precedence over the spell.

Oofta · Jul 15, 2019

Maxperson said:
The mechanic, "Dies when max hit points are 0 from the vampire bite." remains, though. The blood loss was just mentioned, because it's a freaking vampire that just drained you via a bite. It's pretty obvious that no blood is why the PC died from that mechanic. You would only survive if the DM believes that the Raise Dead spell restores the hit point maximum to normal. Me, I don't see the death occurring from poison or nonmagical disease, so I would answer that with a no.

The rules don't say anything about blood drain. In fact, we know that in this scenario the PC died because they had their max HP lowered by wights. Wights don't drain blood.

Vampires do piercing and necrotic damage. They may do that by sucking blood but as far as the rules are concerned there is no mention of irrevocable blood loss.

As for raise dead not working, I disagree with that as well. There is a clause in raise dead that if vital bits like your head are missing the spell doesn't work. There's no clause for not being able to regain a hit point.

Feel free to run it differently in your home game, but there's no rule that the max HP damage is caused by blood loss. Blood loss may be contributing to it, but wights are not draining blood, so I view it as more as absorbing life energy. AKA necrotic damage.

Blue · Jul 15, 2019

jaelis said:
I think that's a sound argument, but debatable because it is a bit of a tangle of specific and general rules. (For instance, cure wounds can't heal you above your hp max, but that is due to the general rule.)

But for the purpose of this argument, I'm willing to assume that the hp max reduction takes precedence over the spell.

I am as well in 5e. I was more saying that I enjoyed that there was that guidance in which way to make ruling which could have been helpful.

Oofta · Jul 15, 2019

Is there another loophole?

Okay, so we know that raise dead has no effect on undead. But if you kill a vampire (or vampire spawn) they are no longer undead. They're just plain old dead.

So ... bury the PC, let them rise as a vampire spawn, kill them (and get some sweet XP). You now have just a body. Cast raise dead. You aren't casting the spell on an undead creature, it's just being cast on a regular old corpse. As long as it's within 10 days of the original death it seems like it might work.

P.S. Yes, this post is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but this whole thread basically boils down to "ask your DM".

MarkB · Jul 15, 2019

Oofta said:
Is there another loophole?

Okay, so we know that raise dead has no effect on undead. But if you kill a vampire (or vampire spawn) they are no longer undead. They're just plain old dead.

So ... bury the PC, let them rise as a vampire spawn, kill them (and get some sweet XP). You now have just a body. Cast raise dead. You aren't casting the spell on an undead creature, it's just being cast on a regular old corpse. As long as it's within 10 days of the original death it seems like it might work.

Well, that depends on what happens when a vampire is destroyed (the Monster Manual doesn't really specify). If it's the traditional "turns to dust" then you don't have a body, and you'll have to resort to Reincarnate or True Resurrection.

Telvin · Jul 15, 2019

We can debate this forever.

Quartz said:
But what's most important is whether or not it's fun for the participants.

It is supposed to be fun. That is why we play the game. Right?

A wise man once said, "the job of the GM is not to say no, but find a way to say yes to the players".

Oofta · Jul 15, 2019

MarkB said:
Well, that depends on what happens when a vampire is destroyed (the Monster Manual doesn't really specify). If it's the traditional "turns to dust" then you don't have a body, and you'll have to resort to Reincarnate or True Resurrection.

True, if by traditional you mean "Buffy the Vampire Slayer traditional". The lore is all over the place on this though. Sometimes they poof sometimes they decay to the level that they would have decayed had they not been undead, sometimes they just leave a corpse. Depends on the lore.

I always assumed they "poofed" on Buffy for much the same reason Star Trek has transporters; it's a cheap and easy special effect. It also makes it easier for Buffy to fight multiple vamps, no worries about stepping over/around dead bodies.

MarkB · Jul 15, 2019

Oofta said:
True, if by traditional you mean "Buffy the Vampire Slayer traditional". The lore is all over the place on this though. Sometimes they poof sometimes they decay to the level that they would have decayed had they not been undead, sometimes they just leave a corpse. Depends on the lore.

I always assumed they "poofed" on Buffy for much the same reason Star Trek has transporters; it's a cheap and easy special effect. It also makes it easier for Buffy to fight multiple vamps, no worries about stepping over/around dead bodies.

True, and on closer examination there is at least an implication that D&D vampires leave a corpse. Under its Shape Changer ability, it notes that the vampire reverts to its natural form if it is destroyed.

Harzel · Jul 16, 2019

Blue said:
One concept from an earlier edition of D&D was specific overrides general. If that's the case, the specific of the spell returning at 1 HP should overcome the general rule that HPs can not exceed max HPs.

I'm pretty sure specific beats general explicitly applies to 5e as well, since there is a section on it right in the front of the PH. However, I think that people try to apply it in cases where it really doesn't fit. Generally when two rules collide, trying to figure which is 'general' and which is 'specific' is like one of those pictures where there is a foreground/background ambiguity - the actual answer is 'neither'. In this case, one could just as easily say, "The specific circumstance of the target having 0 max HP should take precedence over the general rule about this spell returning the target to 1 HP." This is just the intersection of two sets of circumstances, neither one of which is a subset of the other - neither one is demonstrably more specific than the other.

Harzel · Jul 16, 2019

Telvin said:
We can debate this forever.

It is supposed to be fun. That is why we play the game. Right?

Yes.

A wise man once said, "the job of the GM is not to say no, but find a way to say yes to the players".

Not sure whom you are quoting, but he has, at least, a rather narrow view of GMing - in particular, what makes a game fun. Applying the stated principle is fun for some players, but for others it strips out (or at least deprioritizes) some aspects of the game that they find most enjoyable. Unless your table uniformly enjoys that sort of thing, a neutral stance - neither (intentionally) an advocate, nor (intentionally) an adversary - seems, to me, a better spot from which to provide a game that everyone will find engaging.