Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Trevelyan" data-source="post: 4843368" data-attributes="member: 54488">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.&nbsp;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.&nbsp;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.&nbsp;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.&nbsp;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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Trevelyan, post: 4843368, member: 54488"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification