Can a dead character be healed by RAW? (Forked Thread: Bloodied vs. Dying)

[javcs]

It doesn't say you can't, and wizards who use the lich ritual can certainly take actions after they've died. I think we have enough evidence to support that you can take actions with characters that are in the dead state.

No, see, once you're a lich - you're no longer 'dead'.
You are now an animate undead who is ... alive? ... either way - you're no longer dead - because dead means you've got neg bloodied HP or have just failed 3 death saves. The lich would have 0 failed death saves and is no longer at neg bloodied HP - thus, not dead yet (again).

 

[Regicide]

you're no longer dead - because dead means you've got neg bloodied HP or have just failed 3 death saves.

Well, if thats the case then the ritual puts you at neg bloodied HP and having failed 3 death saves since the first that that it does is "you die."

Although this brings up another question I've wondered about... what happens if you let your PCs get their hands on this? Being a lich gives decent benefits at little to no cost.

 

[Flipguarder]

Archlich epic destiny is what happens

 

[javcs]

Well, if thats the case then the ritual puts you at neg bloodied HP and having failed 3 death saves since the first that that it does is "you die."

What's your point? You die, then get reanimated/revived as a lich. I fail to see a problem here - liches are undead.

Although this brings up another question I've wondered about... what happens if you let your PCs get their hands on this? Being a lich gives decent benefits at little to no cost.

Hmmm ... that would be problematic balance-wise, I think, unless the entire party underwent the ritual, or otherwise gained benefits to equalize the power level. If that happened, then I'd consider the party being effectively a couple levels higher for making encounters.
It is somewhat expensive when the party could first gain access to it - I'd be slightly concerned about the party copying it into their ritual books and then attempting to sell it off.

It would almost certainly induce a substantial change in how most npcs interacted with them. Usually, this change will not be for the better.
They'd almost certainly get refused entrance in many places, and get undesirable attention from the churches and religious orders of those deities opposed to undead, and possibly unwanted attention from the church/religious orders of the Raven Queen as well, depending on how they acted.
And, of course, if they draw undesirable attention to themselves from followers of Orcus, they may find themselves without phylacteries anymore.

 

[subrosas]

Why I started this weird argument about dead characters

The advent of exception based rule design has resulted in people treating the *lack of an exception* interchangeably with actual explicitly stated rules. So an ochre jelly can be knocked prone, since it is not explicitly exempted from being knocked prone. Unlike Tide of Iron, Pressing Strike has no limits based on enemy size, so a halfling barbarian can use it to knock the primordial Mual Tar (gargantuan) around "at will".

My point was that lack of an exception should not carry the same weight as a written rule. Perhaps the designers hoped the 4e paradigm of exception based design would allow them to avoid the legalistic 3e Define Everything trap, but in a burst of awe inspiring irony, we have entered bizarro-land where counter-intuitional interpretations of the rules are considered RAW based solely on the fact that the rules DO NOT define precisely how they function. I think that deconstructing the rules in this way leads primarily to confusion and weird (if sometimes funny) conclusions.

The designers did not explicitly state that dead characters cannot be healed, so should we believe they can then be healed? If we say yes, then what if the character's hp rises above their negative bloodied total as a result? While no rules are given for what dead characters can (or cannot) do, there are rules for dying characters. And per RAW a character with negative hp over their [negative] bloodied total is clearly dying. Thus one more hp of healing and they would no longer be dying, but per RAW, also be conscious and above zero hit points. Yes, they would still be dead, but since dead isn't defined, we really can't assume what it means for the character. And since they are now conscious, we have lots of rules about neat things they can then do.

Alternately, we can accept that the designers were human and that we cannot treat the silences of the rulebooks with the same seriousness as the places where they are explicit. We can then decide that Dead characters behave like dead people in the real world (with the exception that they sometimes come back through defined channels like Raise Dead). Lack of an exception can be seen as a necessary but not in itself sufficient reason to accept a particular conclusion: for instance whether dying characters are also bloodied. Lack of an exception here means that it is likely that the dying character is bloodied, but not conclusive in the same way as if the rule book said something like "once below zero hit points but above their negative bloodied amount a character is both bloodied and dying." Now maybe you find the idea that dying characters are bloodied obvious and common sense - I guarantee that there are many out here who disagree with you. Your or my particular sense of what is logical or realistic do not make lack of an exception the same as RAW.

 

[Flipguarder]

OR:

When it don't say nothin' use your head. If my head says something different of what your head says, don't get all up in my face.

 

[keterys]

The advent of exception based rule design

*wince* I really wish WotC would do an article explaining exception-based design to folks more clearly, so it would stop coming up in these arguments.

So an ochre jelly can be knocked prone, since it is not explicitly exempted from being knocked prone. Unlike Tide of Iron, Pressing Strike has no limits based on enemy size, so a halfling barbarian can use it to knock the primordial Mual Tar (gargantuan) around "at will".

Both correct, yes. Absolutely true and right with the world.

My point was that lack of an exception should not carry the same weight as a written rule.

Except, that it _is_ a written rule. For example, a power knocks someone prone. That is the rule. The creature in question has no exception to prone, so it goes prone. Or is pushed, etc.

Characters who are knocked to negative bloodied die and may come back with Raise Dead or other powers. Otherwise we're assumed to know the effects of being dead. And, really, I think we do. The rules are _vague_ about what happens, but the rules are not vague about pressing strike, powers that knock prone _or_ bloodied. We know exactly what those do.

That doesn't make house rules to make the game work the way you prefer inherently bad - they just require that your players also want those house rules and/or that you counterbalance such changes appropriate. It also doesn't mystically either
A) morph the rules _as written_, not to be confused with the rules we play with and enjoy in our home games, into something else to suit your preferences
B) make rules vague or 'lacking an exception' because you disagree with their sensibility

 

[Flipguarder]

Keterys I'm sorry to say that you completely ignored the point of this thread. You say that it IS a written rule. Well how about this:

Lay on hands target is defined as one creature. It does not give an exception for living creature, it just says creature. Also the creature does not have to spend a healing surge, it just GETS healed. There is no exception saying that the dead cannot be healed.

Those ARE written rules. The fact that they don't make sense to you based on other areas or ideas in the game is irrelevant based upon your own logic.

What me and Subrosas are saying is that at some point exceptions being written in becomes unnecessary. Where we all decide these unnecessary exceptions lie is a matter of personal common sense and logic. There will be discrepancies between many. But the fact of the matter is, if you TRULY want to go by raw and nothing else, the dead can be healed with lay on hands.

Obviously the other thread was MORE ambiguous and less ridiculous than this idea taken raw, but we still believe that it is an unnecessary-to-write-in exception to the bloodied rule. You can disagree, thats fine. But you can't point to the rule and say it can't have exceptions unless they are written in.

 

[keterys]

Maybe you missed my response that the rules do allow you to heal someone who is dead. Those heals, however, do not bring them back from the dead, because the rules say nothing about doing so.

So, then you're left with wondering what a dead character at full hp is like... and as far as I can tell by most definitions of 'dead' that just means they're still a corpse. And that's as far as the rules go. They decided not to, say, explicitly define that you couldn't act while dead because they assumed you'd figure it out.

Which brings us back to me pointing out that you can and should interpret the rules as needed, such as figuring out DCs to take actions not defined well by the rules, making rules to allow cool things, flexing DMG p42, changing the rules when you need for the fun and coolness of the table.

But that doesn't change a clearly written rule somehow. If you want a creature to be immune to prone it takes two whole words to make it happen. If you want a power to not push a creature, it takes a few more words but it's easy to do. Those rules exist for a reason and changing them on players by whim can hurt feelings and create a situation in which players are unsure of whether things will work, feel unfairly put upon, or just don't bother trying things. That's not good. Figure out changes you want in advance and decide them, don't just make changes on the fly. Pressing Strike can't push because the halfling is too small, but the Invoker's slide 1 at-will is fine? Why - because it makes more sense to the DM? What, the halfling can't stab the giant in the foot and make it stumble back and the invoker's sun strike is equally as powerful at moving tiny creatures as gargantuan? Make rule changes to make the game more fun, or make them in advance so your players know.

Now, I'll concede that the bloodied argument is slightly less cut and dry than the whole prone an ooze or push a primordial argument. But only slightly, and I do wonder how much is wishful thinking because of Consecrated Ground. Thankfully there are very few powers that are impacted - things like powers (or a dragonborn paragon path) that work only while you're bloodied and turn off when you're no longer bloodied for example.

Now, healing the dead might not be intended to work, but frankly it's immaterial. You could make an argument that it doesn't work because a corpse is an object, and no longer a creature, which removes it from target selection... but why would you care? Healing the dead has literally no effect on the game.

 

[Flipguarder]

unless of course, if dying didn't stop at death. So once dead you are dying, dead and bloodied. There are no rules stating this isn't so, and dying continues as long as you are below 0 hp. Part of the dying condition (or state, or situation etc.) is that any heals immediately bring you to 1 hp and you are conscious. So now you are conscious, dead, prone, and bloodied, but not dying.

EDIT: and possibly according to logic still just an object. HOORAY! I've found a way to play as an intelligent item according to raw!