Bloodied vs. Dying

[keterys]

While I'm no fan of Regicide's, I'll note that 'exception based design' is one of the most misused phrases in debates about the rules. People consistently fail to understand what it actually means.

 

[Markn]

Keterys,

I've enjoyed the debate. I am certainly open to the view that you support. I don't deny that it COULD be correct. In your last response, you made some great points, particularly the one about getting hit and going to dying without ever being bloodied and how odd that might be for effects that trigger on being bloodied. I guess I would see that as going through each effect so if you went from above half hps to below 0, then in one fell swoop you would have gone to bloodied (thus triggering those abilities), to losing that status, then to dying.

In the end, I still have my view and thats ok. I'm not a great debatist, nor am I great at making sound, air tight arguments and I am not sure there is more I can add to give you something to think about. I've offered all I can at this point. It's been fun!

Nail,

The slowed, immobilized and prone description does not apply. Those are all conditions that are independent of HP value. They also don't apply to a, not sure of the proper word here, but a 'state' if you will.

To be bloodied, you must have triggered the Bloodied Value state, to be dying you must have triggered the dying state. The states happen one after the other. You can't be in one state as well as another (your argument of course is that you can). Why is it reasonable to assume that some states can combine, while others can't? It seems more logical that they must be seperate. If one follows that logic, then the description for being bloodied - equal to your bloodied value or lower does not need any further clarification because the dying state takes care of it.

I know I haven't said anything that will change your mind in this post but its all the explanations I have left.

 

[MarkB]

If you're going to start talking about Bloodied and Dying as 'states', then some rules text to support that would be helpful - as well as something which defines what a 'state' is in rules terms and why a creature can never be in more than one at a time.

Otherwise, this particular line of reasoning is something you've just made up, and nothing to do with actual rules.

 

[Markn]

If you're going to start talking about Bloodied and Dying as 'states', then some rules text to support that would be helpful - as well as something which defines what a 'state' is in rules terms and why a creature can never be in more than one at a time.

Otherwise, this particular line of reasoning is something you've just made up, and nothing to do with actual rules.

I'm not sure how to describe it other than state. Maybe value is a better word since its used in the Bloodied Value description. They certainly aren't conditions and I am not sure how to describe them but each one seems to trigger at a certain point.

HIT POINTS
Damage reduces your hit points.
✦ Maximum Hit Points: Your class, level, and Constitution
score determine your maximum hit points.
Your current hit points can’t exceed this number.
✦ Bloodied Value: You are bloodied when your current
hit points drop to your bloodied value or lower.
Your bloodied value is one-half your maximum hit
points (rounded down). Certain powers and effects
work only against a bloodied enemy or work better.
✦ Dying: When your current hit points drop to 0 or
lower, you fall unconscious and are dying.

 

[keterys]

I've enjoyed the debate.

Good! I'd be willing to believe that it's _intended_ to work that you don't count as bloodied when 0 or lower, and that's why Consecrated Ground never came up as a problem.

If that's the case, though, I don't think they approached it consistently throughout however and the game system would be better served by them instead changing Consecrated Ground.

After all, I'd hope that if a healer had a feat that let him heal better on bloodied allies or a power that only worked on bloodied allies that it would work on one who was at 0 or lower...

 

[Regicide]

This comment has no value. If you are that nauseated, move on to a new thread please.

Well since you failed to understand it, apparently it did have no value. Go ahead and keep spouting marketing gibberish as if you think it means something.

As for the debate at hand, you didn't respond to the rest of my quote. Do you honestly think that by not stating something as taking place, in an example, which is commonly not even read, is how they intended to add a rule to the system, instead of explicitly stating such in the actual rules text? Really? That's your argument?

 

[Flipguarder]

No regicide, I don't believe that. But I do believe that the omission of logical conclusion in the text does not eliminate that logical conclusion as a possibility of what was intended.

You see bloodied continuing past 0 hp as logical as you read it by the text.

You see the idea that bloodied is less than 50% hp as overriding.


I see bloodied continuing past 0 hp as illogical as I read it by the text.

I see the idea that bloodied is a state just like not bloodied, dying, and dead are. I do not assume that they can be overriding.

Its just two different ways to interpret the text. Sure you're way might be more reasonable given the text, but I believe some powers become more powerful than intended if interpreted your way. I also see it much more likely that they intended it the way Markn and I interpret it.

 

[Trevelyan]

HIT POINTS
Damage reduces your hit points.
✦ Maximum Hit Points: Your class, level, and Constitution
score determine your maximum hit points.
Your current hit points can’t exceed this number.
✦ Bloodied Value: You are bloodied when your current
hit points drop to your bloodied value or lower.
Your bloodied value is one-half your maximum hit
points (rounded down). Certain powers and effects
work only against a bloodied enemy or work better.
✦ Dying: When your current hit points drop to 0 or
lower, you fall unconscious and are dying.

Obviously some poeple have picked up on the fact that bloodied is defined as being at 50% hit points or less and 0 or negative hit points is less than 50%. That is certainly one interpretation of the above rules.

But the argument seems to hinge on the question of whether the above states are intended to be mutually exclusive, that is whether it is possible to be both dying and bloodied at the same time, just as it is possible to be both slowed and immobilised at the same time.

I don't agree that bloodied and dying are conditions in the same way that slowed and immobilised are. It is entirely possible for a character to be slowed but not immobilised, or to be immobilised but not slowed. Functionally being immobilised supercedes being slowed, but the two conditions are independant - being immobilised does not require that one first pass through the slowed condition.

In contrast, it is not possible to meet the prerequisites for dying without also meeting the prerequisites for being bloodied. Those two states are both dependant on the current number of hit points which the character has. Dying is necessarily a mechanical progression from bloodied in a way in which immobilised is not necessarily a mechanical progression from slowed. As such it seems intuitively reasonable to suggest that dying supercedes bloodied as the 'state' (as distinct from condition) of the character.

This is not conclusive, of course, as it is possible for conditions on a scale to include earlier conditions on that same scale. But comparisons with slowed and immobilised used to justify the notion that dying should include bloodied are false, and I think it far more likely that WotC intended dying and bloodied to be two distinct states, given that they are different posisitons on the single hit point bar, than that they intended for the bloodied state to coexist with the dying state.

 

[Majushi]

Wow.

Clearly everyone here is only spouting their personal beliefs regarding the matter, rather than backing them up with clear rules or rulings.

It is also clear that there is no rule specifically coming down on one side or the other.

My suggestion; Get CustServ to answer if a dying character is also bloodied.

Equally, those claiming you can heal a dead character? seriously? Are you trying to win an argument by spouting something so random that you confuse your opponent and thereby believe you've won? Doesn't work like that I'm afraid...

 

[keterys]

Very well put Trevelyan, as always. I'd be extremely willing to believe that the _intent_ is for you to not be bloodied while dying, or at least someone's intent. I'd also believe that different people had different ideas about how it should work.

As _written_, however, you are definitely bloodied while dying, as far as I can tell from every rule given. I also do believe that it would cause problems if you took that out without also putting in words that allow bloodied triggers and look at appropriate feats and powers to make sure they also work on Dying when appropriate.