D&D 5E Death and 0 Max HP

Maxperson · Jul 20, 2019

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

Only when the rules can be interpreted multiple ways like the situation we are discussing.

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.

This is a False Equivalence. The first example has no ongoing condition. The second does, so the two examples are treated differently.

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.

Fortunately for us, it doesn't matter what it is to you. Your opinion on the matter doesn't stop what you are doing from being rules lawyering semantics. You are stuck on trying to prove meaning of words in order to prove your argument and prove someone else wrong. Arguing meaning is semantics and doing so to try and prove yourself right and someone else wrong is rules lawyering. What our side doing is just semantics, since the words used can also be interpreted differently and mean other things, but we are open minded enough to admit that your side can interpret it the way you guys see it, so we are not rules lawyering.

jaelis · Jul 20, 2019

dnd4vr said:
.
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.

Absolutely, but I don’t believe this is one of those ambiguous cases, and if you want to argue otherwise I think you actually have to talk about the words and grammar involved.

DND_Reborn · Jul 20, 2019

Oofta said:
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.

As Maxperson said, the two are not equivalent. Massive damage does not affect your maximum hit points, which the vampire's necrotic damage does as part of its effect. With massive damage, your maximum hp are still the same. You can be raised normally.

jaelis said:
Absolutely, but I don’t believe this is one of those ambiguous cases, and if you want to argue otherwise I think you actually have to talk about the words and grammar involved.

Well, that is because that is your view. Enjoy it. For others, it is ambiguous for the reasons I've stated repeatedly, along with the reasons including the words and grammar involved, and it can be interpreted in different ways. I have no reason to argue with you about it because you have your view and I have mine. If you don't agree, not a problem, it is not my job to convince you otherwise. Again, no right or wrong involved.

Oofta · Jul 20, 2019

Being at 0 HP doesn't kill you. There is no rule that says you automatically die whenever you have 0 max HP. You die from a vampire's attack if you are reduced to 0 max HP. Just like massive damage, if X happens then you die.

In other words if you're already at 0 max HP, you can't get more than 0. Since you're already at 0 you can't be reduced to 0. The effect doesn't trigger.

I write code for a living which is why this bothers me. The condition you insist on can never be met.

DND_Reborn · Jul 20, 2019

Oofta said:
Being at 0 HP doesn't kill you. There is no rule that says you automatically die whenever you have 0 max HP. You die from a vampire's attack if you are reduced to 0 max HP. Just like massive damage, if X happens then you die.

In other words if you're already at 0 max HP, you can't get more than 0. Since you're already at 0 you can't be reduced to 0. The effect doesn't trigger.

I write code for a living which is why this bothers me. The condition you insist on can never be met.

No, being at 0 hp doesn't kill you. Massive damage kills you because the overflow damage exceeds your maximum hp. The rule is this amount is sufficient to forego death saves and simply state you are dead.

No one has ever said being at maximum 0 hp kills you, the rule is the effect of the vampire's necrotic damage kills you, foregoing death saves, if it reduces your maximum hp to 0.

The effect was triggered when you were reduced to maximum 0 hp, and our (valid) interpretation is the effect is still on-going until removed via a long rest or powerful magic. Others believe once triggered, the effect is done. Perfectly valid POV as well, just not our table's or DM's.

While I don't write code for a living, I have been doing it since the mid-80's in school and as a hobby and write programs for myself as well as others. It doesn't bother me at all and I fail to see why it bothers you, but to each their own I suppose.

Maxperson · Jul 20, 2019

Oofta said:
Being at 0 HP doesn't kill you. There is no rule that says you automatically die whenever you have 0 max HP. You die from a vampire's attack if you are reduced to 0 max HP. Just like massive damage, if X happens then you die.

But there is a rule about 0 max hit points AND necrotic damage FROM a vampire. You interpret that rule differently than we do. That's all. Let the rules lawyer go and just accept that it can be interpreted differently.

I write code for a living which is why this bothers me. The condition you insist on can never be met.

Aha! This is the problem. The rule isn't code and was never intended to be. That's why they use natural language as the benchmark, not code.

Hriston · 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!

I’m trying to understand your “resolution” to the vampire bite conundrum. It would help if you engaged with the reasoning I laid out in my post, rather than dismissing it as just my interpretation, so I could understand where our reasonings differ. I’m going to try to piece together what you might think the difference is based on some quotes from your posts. Let me know if I have it right.

dnd4vr said:
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.

I’m not sure what you mean by “the necrotic effect of the vampire’s bite”. One effect of the bite is that it does necrotic damage, which ends instantly after taking away some of your hit points, but I don’t think that’s what you mean. Another effect of the bite is that it also reduces your maximum hit points by the same amount as the necrotic damage you've taken. That effect also ends instantly after reducing your maximum hit points. The thing that lasts is the reduction, i.e. your maximum hit points stay reduced until you have finished a long rest.

dnd4vr said:
No one has ever said being at maximum 0 hp kills you, the rule is the effect of the vampire's necrotic damage kills you, foregoing death saves, if it reduces your maximum hp to 0.

The effect was triggered when you were reduced to maximum 0 hp, and our (valid) interpretation is the effect is still on-going until removed via a long rest or powerful magic. Others believe once triggered, the effect is done. Perfectly valid POV as well, just not our table's or DM's.

You seem to be using the word "effect" for a lot of different things. In your first paragraph above, you correctly (IMO) refer to the effect that reduces your hit point maximum as an effect of the bite. This is the effect that kills you if it reduces your maximum hit points to 0.

In your second paragraph above, however, you seem to be saying that dying is the effect and that it's triggered by your maximum hit points being reduced to 0. I'm not sure how to make sense of this except to say that dying is a secondary effect of the bite, contingent upon your maximum hit points being reduced to 0 by the primary effect that reduces your maximum hit points. You then go on to say that the secondary effect (dying) is the thing that lasts until you finish a long rest. I think you're getting questions about this from people who are reading the rules because the rules say the reduction, the fact of your maximum hit points having been reduced, is what lasts until you've finished a long rest, not the fact of being dead. Once reduced, your maximum hit points stay reduced until you've finished a long rest. This doesn't imply that once dead, you stay dead until you've finished a long rest. To support this reading, I'd just like to point out that you can't take a long rest if you're dead, so I'm not sure what that sentence would even mean if by "The reduction" the writers meant "Death".

DND_Reborn · Jul 20, 2019

Hriston said:
I’m trying to understand your “resolution” to the vampire bite conundrum. It would help if you engaged with the reasoning I laid out in my post, rather than dismissing it as just my interpretation, so I could understand where our reasonings differ. I’m going to try to piece together what you might think the difference is based on some quotes from your posts. Let me know if I have it right.

I’m not sure what you mean by “the necrotic effect of the vampire’s bite”. One effect of the bite is that it does necrotic damage, which ends instantly after taking away some of your hit points, but I don’t think that’s what you mean. Another effect of the bite is that it also reduces your maximum hit points by the same amount as the necrotic damage you've taken. That effect also ends instantly after reducing your maximum hit points. The thing that lasts is the reduction, i.e. your maximum hit points stay reduced until you have finished a long rest.

You seem to be using the word "effect" for a lot of different things. In your first paragraph above, you correctly (IMO) refer to the effect that reduces your hit point maximum as an effect of the bite. This is the effect that kills you if it reduces your maximum hit points to 0.

In your second paragraph above, however, you seem to be saying that dying is the effect and that it's triggered by your maximum hit points being reduced to 0. I'm not sure how to make sense of this except to say that dying is a secondary effect of the bite, contingent upon your maximum hit points being reduced to 0 by the primary effect that reduces your maximum hit points. You then go on to say that the secondary effect (dying) is the thing that lasts until you finish a long rest. I think you're getting questions about this from people who are reading the rules because the rules say the reduction, the fact of your maximum hit points having been reduced, is what lasts until you've finished a long rest, not the fact of being dead. Once reduced, your maximum hit points stay reduced until you've finished a long rest. This doesn't imply that once dead, you stay dead until you've finished a long rest. To support this reading, I'd just like to point out that you can't take a long rest if you're dead, so I'm not sure what that sentence would even mean if by "The reduction" the writers meant "Death".

While normally I appreciate discussions, I am sorry but I am so entirely done with this thread. I don't mean to dismiss your contribution out-of-hand and I don't mean any offense as I value your input at a member of this community, I truly do (when I recognize a handle as someone's views I respect, I remember the name). However, I have been going on with this since something like page 5. Enough is enough already and I am not about to rehash everything I have already said over and over again. I'm sorry if the way I expressed some points lead to confusion. I will sum up one final time:

1. The necrotic damage is what "reduces the maximum hp" (effect).

2. The reduced maximum hp can only be restored by finishing a long rest.
(Obviously Greater Restoration will also work.)

3. Until this happens, the effect of "reduced maximum hp" is still working.
(That is our interpretation and the main point of contention. It doesn't say it stops, it doesn't say it continues; all it says is how to remove it. Until removed, we believe it is on-going.)

4. If it reaches 0 maximum hp, the target dies.

Revivify and Raise Dead won't work (for us) because the effect hasn't been removed and the target cannot be restored to 1 hit point until it is. Your hit points cannot exceed your maximum except via temporary hit points. These spells do not bring the target to 1 temporary hit point, but simply 1 hit point. Anyway, since Greater Restoration targets a creature and not an object (the corpse), our DM is ruling the two spells can be cast in a ceremony together, requiring two casters to cast the spells simultaneously.

I hope that explains everything more clearly. If not, maybe someone else will try to satisfy you on the issue. When it is all resolved in-game, I will try to post the results for the curious.

Maxperson · Jul 20, 2019

Hriston said:
I’m not sure what you mean by “the necrotic effect of the vampire’s bite”. One effect of the bite is that it does necrotic damage, which ends instantly after taking away some of your hit points, but I don’t think that’s what you mean. Another effect of the bite is that it also reduces your maximum hit points by the same amount as the necrotic damage you've taken. That effect also ends instantly after reducing your maximum hit points. The thing that lasts is the reduction, i.e. your maximum hit points stay reduced until you have finished a long rest.

The necrotic effect does not end instantly. Only the damage ends instantly. If the effect also ended, there could be no reduction in maximum hit points. There must be some sort of ongoing necrotic effect that reduces the maximum hit points and keeps them reduced. That ongoing effect is also what kills the PC at 0 maximum hit points.

Hriston · Jul 21, 2019

dnd4vr said:
While normally I appreciate discussions, I am sorry but I am so entirely done with this thread. I don't mean to dismiss your contribution out-of-hand and I don't mean any offense as I value your input at a member of this community, I truly do (when I recognize a handle as someone's views I respect, I remember the name). However, I have been going on with this since something like page 5. Enough is enough already and I am not about to rehash everything I have already said over and over again. I'm sorry if the way I expressed some points lead to confusion. I will sum up one final time:

1. The necrotic damage is what "reduces the maximum hp" (effect).

2. The reduced maximum hp can only be restored by finishing a long rest.
(Obviously Greater Restoration will also work.)

3. Until this happens, the effect of "reduced maximum hp" is still working.
(That is our interpretation and the main point of contention. It doesn't say it stops, it doesn't say it continues; all it says is how to remove it. Until removed, we believe it is on-going.)

4. If it reaches 0 maximum hp, the target dies.

Revivify and Raise Dead won't work (for us) because the effect hasn't been removed and the target cannot be restored to 1 hit point until it is. Your hit points cannot exceed your maximum except via temporary hit points. These spells do not bring the target to 1 temporary hit point, but simply 1 hit point. Anyway, since Greater Restoration targets a creature and not an object (the corpse), our DM is ruling the two spells can be cast in a ceremony together, requiring two casters to cast the spells simultaneously.

I hope that explains everything more clearly. If not, maybe someone else will try to satisfy you on the issue. When it is all resolved in-game, I will try to post the results for the curious.

I think you're correct in that our main point of contention is in your #3. You say the effect that reduced the target's maximum hit points "is still working", but that doesn't seem right to me. In #1, you correctly identify the effect as reducing the target's hit point maximum by the amount of the necrotic damage taken, but once it has reduced the target's hit point maximum, the effect's work is done. It doesn't keep reducing the target's hit point maximum, so I don't see how it can be said that it's "still working".

I also don't understand why the target's maximum hit points being set at 0 would pose any hindrance to it being raised. The healing effect of a spell like revivify isn't a prerequisite to its effect that restores the target to life, so the spell should bring the target back to life with 0 hit points, and the 1 hit point of healing provided by the spell would simply be lost.