[3.5] Simultaneous actions?

[macdaddy]

I've been playing/DMing for a long time, and something new came up last session :)

The party is all 3rd level. The druid and cleric are acting on the same initiative, the druid has a higher dex modifier, so declares his actions first. He casts a Mass Snakes Swiftness that effects the enraged dwarf barbarian and human duskblade. They both get attacks on a savage creature, killing it. The creature has a special ability "death throws" that allows it to make a dying bite attack at a foe.

Since the Dwarf, who has 1 HP remaining, is the only one in BtB contact (the duskblade is using a reach weapon), the creature attacks him, hits, and reduces him to -6 hit points.

Now it all gets interesting!

Because he was raging, when he drops unconscious, he loses his bonus con hit points (+6). This would drop him to -12, thus killing him. However, the cleric is going on the SAME initiative as the druids spell. So I allowed him to cast cure moderate, take a 5' step, and touch the Dwarf. He did enough so that the dwarf ended up at net of 1 HP... and lived.

So, SHOULD the cleric have been allowed to cast his spell and tap the Dwarf or should the Dwarf have died? I can't seem to find anything to support it. It seems as though we should have completely resolved the Druid's action, and all resultant sub-actions, before allowing the cleric to do anything, thus the dwarf would be dead....

[Ashtagon]

Do whatever makes the players happier in this case.

[Segev]

It all happened on the same initiative; in theory, you could use relative initiative order to determine it, but honestly, the way you handled it is within just about anybody's acceptable bounds.

[Telonius]

Using Close Wounds instead of Cure X would have solved the issue, since it's an Immediate Action to cast... but technically, I'd think that as soon as the action has resolved, he'd have been dead-dead. While the two characters had the same initiative roll, the total initiative bonus is the tiebreaker, and they aren't acting simultaneously. (At least, not any more simultaneously than anybody else is; the entire combat round does all take place within the same six seconds).

EDIT: Personally I'd have ruled the same as you; losing a third-level character to a technicality is not fun.

[NeoPhoenix0]

Technically, he should be dead. Most of us around the 3.5 forum however realize that this game requires a decent amount of interpretation to be playable and fun. So really it is whatever makes the game fun. Also technically he should be alive, because rule 0, the DM has the final say, is an actual rule of the game and you ruled that he had a chance at life. so he lived.

[Drork]

For what reason did the rage end? Although it makes sense for the rage effects to end Ive never seen it in the rules that it should. There are some rages effects where it states that it does but I see no reason to rule that his Con bonus is ended. Their is a duration and no where does it say that the barbarian needs to maintain focus or consciousness. I think it is fairly reasonable to just go with he never lost the con so he bounces back up next round still raging.

[eggynack]

The actual answer here is that simultaneous actions of this sort aren't a thing. Per the rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/initiative.htm), if two characters roll the same, then they should go in the order of their initiative modifier, or if those numbers are the same, roll again to determine who goes first. The druid wouldn't just declare his actions first. He would just straight up go first, resolve everything about his turn, and then the cleric would go. By that reasoning, the barbarian absolutely should have died, but as Drork notes, it doesn't look like the barbarian should have stopped raging after getting knocked out, so he actually shouldn't have died. So, your ruling is fine in the end, as it turns out, but in the future you should make sure that turns don't happen simultaneously as they did in this case if you want to stick to the rules.

[goto124]

it doesn't look like the barbarian should have stopped raging after getting knocked out, so he actually shouldn't have died.

'After you pass out, you continue raging in your dreams, keeping you alive...'

[Telonius]

Huh, looking at it again, it does seem that nothing about Rage or Unconsciousness says that one would have an effect on the other. It is explicitly a Pathfinder rule (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian) that unconsciousness ends rage:

If a barbarian falls unconscious, her rage immediately ends, placing her in peril of death.

But nothing official in 3.5.

[Ogh_the_Second]

Huh, looking at it again, it does seem that nothing about Rage or Unconsciousness says that one would have an effect on the other. It is explicitly a Pathfinder rule (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian) that unconsciousness ends rage:

But nothing official in 3.5.

Indeed, at one of the 3.5 tables where I play, the 'quit-rage-on-unconsciousness' is an explicit houserule, which becomes increasingly important after the first few levels. From lvl 5, going into the negatives automatically means you are dead. This made me go for the Races of Destiny 'Fearless Destiny' feat (ruled to prevent this particular mishap).

[Sith_Happens]

Indeed, at one of the 3.5 tables where I play, the 'quit-rage-on-unconsciousness' is an explicit houserule, which becomes increasingly important after the first few levels. From lvl 5, going into the negatives automatically means you are dead.

I seriously have no idea why anyone would knowingly do this. It's even worse than fixing something that's not broken, you're deliberately breaking something that's not broken.

[KillianHawkeye]

Indeed, at one of the 3.5 tables where I play, the 'quit-rage-on-unconsciousness' is an explicit houserule, which becomes increasingly important after the first few levels. From lvl 5, going into the negatives automatically means you are dead. This made me go for the Races of Destiny 'Fearless Destiny' feat (ruled to prevent this particular mishap).


I seriously have no idea why anyone would knowingly do this. It's even worse than fixing something that's not broken, you're deliberately breaking something that's not broken.

I agree, Sith_Happens, and I can't believe that Pathfinder apparently wants all their Barbarians to die unnecessary deaths. The simple truth is that, in non-Pathfinder D&D at least, rage doesn't end when you get knocked out because it would lead to the character's immediate death the stronger they get, which makes no sense at all. Trust me, going down while you're raging is dangerous enough already without making it a death sentence.

If you don't want me to play a Barbarian, just tell me outright, y'know? Don't passive-aggressively punish me for it.

[Extra Anchovies]

On a related topic, how much of a Barbarian buff would it be for the increased Constitution to instead grant temporary HP that lasted for the duration of the rage (or for Con rounds, if you want to gate it a bit more)?

[With a box]

On a related topic, how much of a Barbarian buff would it be for the increased Constitution to instead grant temporary HP that lasted for the duration of the rage (or for Con rounds, if you want to gate it a bit more)?



Rage (Ex)

A barbarian can fly into a rage a certain number of times per day. In a rage, a barbarian temporarily gains a +4 bonus to Strength, a +4 bonus to Constitution, and a +2 morale bonus on Will saves, but he takes a -2 penalty to Armor Class. The increase in Constitution increases the barbarian’s hit points by 2 points per level, but these hit points go away at the end of the rage when his Constitution score drops back to normal. (These extra hit points are not lost first the way temporary hit points are.)

they already does. actually, make them temporary hit points would be buff for them.