Bloodied While Dying - Confirmed!
- Thread starter Markn
- Start date
I must have not been clear with that. I did not mean it as "bloodied is a condition like dazed". I meant it as "bloodied is a mutually exclusive state, different than dying, therefore one is either dying, bloodied, or not.".
I'm not saying that this is true, I am saying that this is how is was interpreted by some people.
Some people consider them dying and bloodied as mutually exclusive states. I consider this to be a game mechanical (i.e. gamist) approach. Would someone who is dying still be bloodied? If the answer to that is no, then it's not because this is plausible, but because someone thinks that's the rules or because someone thinks that this makes other rules more reasonable.
Some people consider them as states, but not mutually exclusive. I consider this to be a more plausible (i.e. simulationist) approach. Would someone who is dying still be bloodied? If the answer to that is yes, then it's because this seems more plausible or realistic (in addition to it being the literal rules).
SteveC
Doing the best imitation of myself
I'd like to take a look at this from another angle: what harm does running the game with bloodied no longer applying when a character is dying cause?
The only thing I can see is that it keeps automatic effects that trigger on bloodied from continuing when the character is below 0 hit points. Is there an example of where that would be a bad thing? Is it just the auto-heal "unkillable" issue we're talking about, or is there something else?
I talked it over with my group, and they have no problems running with healthy-->bloodied-->dying-->dead as being distinctly different states, but I don't want to hinder them unnecessarily.
Thoughts?
The only thing I can see is that it keeps automatic effects that trigger on bloodied from continuing when the character is below 0 hit points. Is there an example of where that would be a bad thing? Is it just the auto-heal "unkillable" issue we're talking about, or is there something else?
I talked it over with my group, and they have no problems running with healthy-->bloodied-->dying-->dead as being distinctly different states, but I don't want to hinder them unnecessarily.
Thoughts?
eamon
Explorer
I think you're focusing too much on mechanical states here. It's just a matter of terminology - you've decided it's worth talking about various gradations of "damaged", so now you've got to agree on what these various gradations are called and how we'll talk about em.
Compare to "dry" "damp" "moist" "wet" and "soaked", say. Something can be "dry but damp" - but probably not "dry but wet". Is something soaked moist?
This isn't a matter of gamist vs. simulationist attitudes or of any kind of plausibility, it's just a matter agreeing on terminology. The PHB merely names them as a list of possible states - some probably mutually exclusive (say, dead and bloodied) others not necessarily so (dying and bloodied). Apparently WotC's twitter-team has decided that dying is just a more extreme form of being bloodied, and that rules that apply while blooding should thus also apply while dying.
Whether that's a simulationist and/or a gamist choice (two categories that aren't necessarily in opposition, imho) is going to depend on the rule and the situation. Some rule somewhere involving bloodied probably doesn't make much sense while dying, even though others do - and similarly for playability+fun.
Yes, but the difference here is that we need to be clear in order to adjudicate.
Well, it might not be for you, it is for me.
If a creature is in a blood frenzy and attacks creatures covered in blood harder than it does those that are not, then it is a plausibility issue that the unconscious guy who was covered in blood a second ago is no longer covered in blood and the creature no longer frenzies from the smell of blood.
This is not much different than the plausibility of Opportunity Attacks.
If I am prone on the ground and cast a ranged spell or shoot a bow, I provoke an Opportunity Attack because I "lower my guard".
If I am prone on the ground and am unconscious and my guard is as low as it can possibly be, I do not provoke an Opportunity Attack.
This is not plausible. The conscious guy opens himself up for more attacks than the unconscious guy, but each are from a rules perspective, just as close and accessible to an attacker.
There are rules that are not plausible. But they are there for fun, balance, or other reasons. Cleave is an example. If I hit this foe, I always damage that foe. That's not plausible. But, we hand wave it away.
keterys
First Post
I'm Gamist over Simulationist, if we have to use those terms, and I always picked bloodied while dying for grammatical / rules language reasons. For Dying to not include bloodied required creating a mechanic (separate states) or reading into an example not only a rule, but also more than it explicitly said.
That said, with regeneration stopping at 0, the only problem that most folks will encounter with the correct ruling is Consecrated Ground. The only real problems with bloodied being a separate state from dying are when creatures gain a bonus while bloodied (such as increased healing, resistance to damage, etc), are able to be conscious while dying or take a dying action, or have healing powers that only work on bloodied targets.
When you have a problem with one thing, though, like Consecrated Ground, it's always better to fix that one thing, rather than changing other rules to shortcut it.
That said, with regeneration stopping at 0, the only problem that most folks will encounter with the correct ruling is Consecrated Ground. The only real problems with bloodied being a separate state from dying are when creatures gain a bonus while bloodied (such as increased healing, resistance to damage, etc), are able to be conscious while dying or take a dying action, or have healing powers that only work on bloodied targets.
When you have a problem with one thing, though, like Consecrated Ground, it's always better to fix that one thing, rather than changing other rules to shortcut it.
eamon
Explorer
I guess I just think of bloodied differently. To me, the whole concept never really sat well when considered literally, so I think of it more like "tired". Somebodies hurt. They've pulled a muscle, are sore and out of breath, etc. I mean, lots of creatures get the label bloodied even though they don't even have any blood. For that matter, a warforged PC sounds like a weird think to have bloodied...
So, when an ability targets bloodied creatures exceptionally well, I think of it as picking on the easy targets. It's like the expression "smelling blood" - it's commonly used for any kind of weakness or raw spot, even in non-physical debate (say, here...). Hitting a bloodied creature more strongly might reflect your increasing self confidence, or it might reflect that your blows don't diminish in strength but your opponents defenses have decayed.
keterys
First Post
Heh, yeah, been on vacation. Also spinning up to run a third game per week, and started a big (for me, given how little spare time I have) project to clean up the wotc errata boards, so... probably going to not be around a ton for a few more weeks
On that note, was looking at a cleric paragon path earlier that heals a d6 more to bloodied targets. I like it better when that works on dying PCs as well, I think.
What could be more of an easy target than a dying foe?
This is just another reason that I like the new ruling. If someone is an easy foe when they are tired (i.e. bloodied, sore, however one interprets bloodied), they sure as heck should be an easy foe when dying.
Similar Threads
