Can enemy reduce Constitution Score below 0 if you wear stat boost item?

[SinsI]

A wizard chose Constitution as a dump stat (penalty to Con race, venerable age), selecting Faeries Mysteries Initiate instead to have plenty of HP.
He is wearing a Con +2 item.
If ability damage or ability drain reduces his natural Constitution score to 0, that item will still prevent him from dying.
But can you damage/drain his Constitution further, reducing natural Con score to below 0 and thus destroying him?

[Hrugner]

Yes ability damage can put your base score in the negative if you have a something keeping the total score at zero or higher.

[SinsI]

Yes ability damage can put your base score in the negative if you have a something keeping the total score at zero or higher.
Citation or rule, please.
Players can apply effects in the order they chose. So you first take your base ability score of 0 (SRD says "ability scores can't go below 0"), apply the damage/drain to it (still getting 0 due to the same rule), and apply the final temporary enhancement bonus from the equipment that raises it to 2 and keeps you safe.

[Morcleon]

Citation or rule, please.
Players can apply effects in the order they chose. So you first take your base ability score of 0 (SRD says "ability scores can't go below 0"), apply the damage/drain to it (still getting 0 due to the same rule), and apply the final temporary enhancement bonus from the equipment that raises it to 2 and keeps you safe.

Except that's not the order it's applied in. You have a character with Con 10. With an Amulet, their Con goes to 12. If they take 12 Con damage, they die. They don't get to apply the enhancement bonus after the damage since it's already been applied.

Now, if this was any other ability score, say Str, it would be different. A character starts with Str 10. They take 10+ Str damage and their Str goes to 0 and they can't move. If after the damage was applied, someone put a Belt of Str +2 on them, their Str would go from 0 to 2, allowing them to move again. Of course, at this point, if they take another 2 Str damage, they go back to Str 0 (but can have someone remove and reapply the Belt to restore them to Str 2).

[SinsI]

I don't trust that "remove and reapply" bit. Why the hell should an effect depend on whether you turned it on and off?

[Curmudgeon]

Players can apply effects in the order they chose.
I don't think that's an actual game rule.

[SinsI]

I don't think that's an actual game rule.
I don't think that there is a ruling about that at all. Which kinda means that it is an actual game rule - players can do anything that doesn't contradict the rules.

[Morcleon]

I don't trust that "remove and reapply" bit. Why the hell should an effect depend on whether you turned it on and off?

It shouldn't but that's the way game rules work. You are functionally immune to ability score damage or drain to a single ability score if that score is 0, and it cannot go below 0. So if you take away 2 points (from an item), it remains at 0. But then if you put it back on, you get a +2 to that ability score again, and thus have a score of 2.


I don't think that there is a ruling about that at all. Which kinda means that it is an actual game rule - players can do anything that doesn't contradict the rules.

Players can choose the order by choosing not to wear the item before their score is reduced. If they are already wearing the item, they have already chosen to apply the item's effects before they take ability damage.

[Renen]

I don't think that there is a ruling about that at all. Which kinda means that it is an actual game rule - players can do anything that doesn't contradict the rules.

Players can walk around after their HP is dropped below -10. They are no longer KO'd since that is only for when the HP is between -1 and -9. And "dead" isnt described as a status effect that actually... harms you in any way or impedes your ability to move, think, etc...

[Curmudgeon]

Which kinda means that it is an actual game rule - players can do anything that doesn't contradict the rules.
That's not sensible; that way madness lies. There's no rule saying my character can't kill all enemies merely by willing them to be dead. :smallannoyed:

[SinsI]

That's not sensible; that way madness lies. There's no rule saying my character can't kill all enemies merely by willing them to be dead. :smallannoyed:
Please, don't exaggerate. "Order in which effects are applied is not defined (but is necessary to decide for the game anyway) so player can choose it" is far different from "let players introduce completely new abilities as long as they wish".
Plus, that ability (to decide order of effects) is frequently assumed in discussions on applying several metamagic feats in a combo (i.e. use Ocular Spell to change a ray spell with variable range into a spell with fixed range and thus make it an acceptable target for a Persistent Spell).

[nyjastul69]

Please, don't exaggerate. "Order in which effects are applied is not defined (but is necessary to decide for the game anyway) so player can choose it" is far different from "let players introduce completely new abilities as long as they wish".
Plus, that ability (to decide order of effects) is frequently assumed in discussions on applying several metamagic feats in a combo (i.e. use Ocular Spell to change a ray spell with variable range into a spell with fixed range and thus make it an acceptable target for a Persistent Spell).

Just because certain things are assumed, it does not make them necessarily accurate.

[Aldrakan]

I don't think that there is a ruling about that at all. Which kinda means that it is an actual game rule - players can do anything that doesn't contradict the rules.

Pretty sure that if there is no ruling on something it means that the DM decides how it works. The player can offer their interpretation, but the DM doesn't have to accept it. And I'd think most would reject the any claim along the lines of:
"I'm applying the constant Con bonus I gain from wearing this belt after my Con is calculated and because it can't be reduced below 0 and has a +2 bonus I always have at least 2 Con."

It strikes me as trying to apply Magic the Gathering triggers and state-based effect thinking to D&D despite such a rules framework not actually existing there.


As for taking the belt on and off for other stats, that should probably just be houseruled if the situation arises. If something has drained 12 Str it makes no sense for you to be able to reduce your Str to 10 then boost is back up to 12 and gain strength in the process.

[ComaVision]

It makes more sense to me that you can't have an attribute reduced to 0 if you're wearing the associated boosting item, since you can't ability drain said items (to my knowledge).

[Hrugner]

I assume this is the problem phrase


Keeping track of negative ability score points is never necessary. A character’s ability score can’t drop below 0. (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Ability_Score_Loss)

We can read this one of two ways. Either you can't lose anymore of a stat than you actually have before bonuses, or you can't lose anymore stats than you currently have after bonuses. However, from the same page we have this line


Constitution 0 means that the character is dead.

Now, we can use the players total constitution score after bonuses to set their con score for this purpose, or we can set it afterward. Since both purposes are the same, we are stopping loss only because there is no point in going below 0 as you suffer the maximum negative effect at 0, we know that whichever decision we make to determine the amount of con loss required to kill a person will also be the total amount of con loss they can take total.

[Taelas]

"I'm applying the constant Con bonus I gain from wearing this belt after my Con is calculated and because it can't be reduced below 0 and has a +2 bonus I always have at least 2 Con."

That would never work. You would have a 0 Con score (before the +2 bonus is applied), which means you'd be dead.

[Andezzar]

Unless the rules tell us otherwise (like enhancements to INT), there si no distinction how ability scores are achieved. So whether you have an ability score 12 through the dice roll/point assignment alone, through racial modifiers or through magic items/spells, you can receive up to 12 points of ability damage and will suffer the consequences of having a score of 0 if you do. If you later have the option to increase the score again (since the damaged ability was not CON), you gain all the benefits of having a positive ability score.

So yes if someone removes the boosting item/spell and reapplies it, you will not stay helpless.

[Elkad]

If you manage to get yourself into the negatives (you got drained to 0, and then someone took your stat-booster), you are going to die in my world.
Immediate unconsciousness from too weak to breathe, complete paralysis, uncontrollable seizures, failure of autonomic brain function, depending on the stat.

Death will follow rapidly. Probably apply the negative stat amount to another stat (starting with Con if you have one) every round.

[Aldrakan]

That would never work. You would have a 0 Con score (before the +2 bonus is applied), which means you'd be dead.

Good point. Trying this with Con and warping this into an MtG style system would kill you as a state-based action before you could apply the +2, so the trick doesn't work either way. Replace Con with Strength for that example as why the DM almost certainly wouldn't allow it in general.

[Andezzar]

If you manage to get yourself into the negatives (you got drained to 0, and then someone took your stat-booster), you are going to die in my world.
Immediate unconsciousness from too weak to breathe, complete paralysis, uncontrollable seizures, failure of autonomic brain function, depending on the stat.

Death will follow rapidly. Probably apply the negative stat amount to another stat (starting with Con if you have one) every round.You can of course do that at your table, but that is a house rule. The rules are clear that you cannot reduce an ability score below 0. So if you remove the item after the wearer has been reduced to 0 in an ability score, the score stays 0. If you then add the item again the score improves by the bonus of the item.

[Renen]

But does it say you can't reduce the base ability score below 0 or just ability score? Because if it says just ability score, then I would definitely count magic items. If one is ever removed, you don't drop to negatives, the "drop" stopping at 0.

[Morcleon]

But does it say you can't reduce the base ability score below 0 or just ability score? Because if it says just ability score, then I would definitely count magic items. If one is ever removed, you don't drop to negatives, the "drop" stopping at 0.

Base ability score is not a thing. You have a single ability score total after all modifiers. Taking damage to that can drop it to 0, but never below. Removing the item would have no effect after that point, but if you then reapplied it, you would then have a score equal to the bonus that items gives.

[SinsI]

Base ability score is not a thing. You have a single ability score total after all modifiers. Taking damage to that can drop it to 0, but never below. Removing the item would have no effect after that point, but if you then reapplied it, you would then have a score equal to the bonus that items gives.
No, it is. I.e. skill points are based only on base ability score and permanent modifiers, not on temporary enchantments.

[Morcleon]

No, it is. I.e. skill points are based only on base ability score and permanent modifiers, not on temporary enchantments.

Oh yeah, there is that. To clarify, base ability scores are not a thing when it comes to ability damage.

[Telonius]

I don't think that's an actual game rule.

There are a few lines in the FAQ about it; but, well, FAQ... and it states that it's a guideline, not a rule, anyway.



As a general guideline, whenever the rules don’t stipulate an order of operations for special effects (such as spells or special abilities), you should apply them in the order that’s most beneficial to the [creature, controller, etc]

[Curmudgeon]

There are a few lines in the FAQ about it; but, well, FAQ... and it states that it's a guideline, not a rule, anyway.
I think player choice is covered — in the practical manner Morcleon stated:

Players can choose the order by choosing not to wear the item before their score is reduced. If they are already wearing the item, they have already chosen to apply the item's effects before they take ability damage.

[Jay R]

There's no point trying to convince anybody your theory is correct except your DM.

Unless somebody can cite a clear, unambiguous rule, the DM must make a judgment call.

If somebody does find a clear, unambiguous rule, the DM can still choose to make a judgment call.

[SinsI]

Actually, the real questions we should be discussing are "Which is the more interesting interpretation?" and "How does it affect game balance?"

[Aldrakan]

Actually, the real questions we should be discussing are "Which is the more interesting interpretation?" and "How does it affect game balance?"

What are you suggesting? That because the game has built into its rules the presence of a judge with power to interpret, ignore, and rewrite the rules as they see fit, questions of what's legal should be directed at the play experience and by extension what the DM is likely to allow rather than clinging solely to, in a game of near-infinite variety, rules that mostly are a short paragraph long and could not possibly cover a fraction of the various exceptions and factors that would sensibly arise in the game, and leave immense gaps where there is simply no rule as to what happens in a given situation?

Too late, I think.

[Taelas]

There's no point trying to convince anybody your theory is correct except your DM.

:smallconfused:

There is almost always a point in trying to convince people that your theory is correct. Whether or not something useful comes of it is a different matter entirely.

Simply by having the debate, you might get exposed to new aspects of the situation that you had not considered.

[Psyren]

Players can walk around after their HP is dropped below -10. They are no longer KO'd since that is only for when the HP is between -1 and -9. And "dead" isnt described as a status effect that actually... harms you in any way or impedes your ability to move, think, etc...

While I agree with your overall point, this is a pretty bad example. "Dead" does actually mean something by RAW:


In case it matters, a dead character, no matter how she died, has -10 hit points.

And if you have -10 hit points, you can't walk around, because:


When your nonlethal damage equals your current hit points, you’re staggered, and when it exceeds your current hit points, you fall unconscious. It doesn’t matter whether the nonlethal damage equals or exceeds your current hit points because the nonlethal damage has gone up or because your current hit points have gone down.

Thus, even if you have no nonlethal damage at all (0), that will exceed your current hit points (-10.) Thus dead creatures are always unconscious, as are dying ones (barring something specific overriding this, like Diehard.)

[Renen]

Diehard makes you immortal! (well, you already are, it just makes being immortal more fun)

[Sagetim]

I assume this is the problem phrase



We can read this one of two ways. Either you can't lose anymore of a stat than you actually have before bonuses, or you can't lose anymore stats than you currently have after bonuses. However, from the same page we have this line



Now, we can use the players total constitution score after bonuses to set their con score for this purpose, or we can set it afterward. Since both purposes are the same, we are stopping loss only because there is no point in going below 0 as you suffer the maximum negative effect at 0, we know that whichever decision we make to determine the amount of con loss required to kill a person will also be the total amount of con loss they can take total.


So, hp is a total. You have x/your max hp in hit points. When you take hit point damage, you mark it off the x area and that's your current hp.

Okay.

So, ability scores don't work that way.

With ability scores you have an equation:
total (min 0) = base + racial + enhancement + innate + level up - damage - drain + penalty +/- other modifiers

With that in mind, when you put on a magic item, you are adjusting the equation. This does not erase damage. That's very important to note. Damage is part of the equation, and is a negative number in that equation. It's why there's a subtraction sign there. But unlike hp, you don't just take ability score damage and erase it from somewhere on your ability score equation, you track it. You track it because you don't note your ability scores in the x/max way that you track hp current/maximum.
So when a 10 strength guy takes 15 strength damage, his equation looks something like
Total 0 = 10 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 -15 - 0 + 0
Because the total cannot be a negative number, the total stays at 0. That doesn't mean you didn't take 15 damage, it just means the end of the equation is set to 0 when it would be lower otherwise. And if you're wondering, you add a penalty because penalties are generally given as negative numbers while damage and drain are generally given as positive numbers.

So, if you are damaged beyond your limit and reduced to 0, can you keep taking damage? Yes. It's going to be a much longer process for you to heal that damage naturally.

If you wear a stat boosting item, does it prevent you from hitting 0? No. It just plugs into the equation. If your total would be reduced to 0 or less, item or not, it's reduced to 0. Taking off the item doesn't erase the damage, because you haven't healed the damage.


Edit: That said, I don't think I've ever seen anyone reduced to what would be negative ability score points unless it was done by a player to an npc. I tend not to have any reason to throw stat damaging monsters at players when I DM and they tend to do me the courtesy of aiming for hp to kill things. The only time I've seen a thing reduced to 0, or what would be negatives, was from a particular player in a game where I am also a player. It just hasn't come up for me in the course of play....except maybe one time when I was playing 3.0?

[Jay R]

If this occurred in my game, it would be a hard call.

It certainly seems that somebody with CON 0 and a ring of +2 CON is a corpse with something worth looting.

But if your effective CON is 6 (CON 4 plus the ring), and you take 4 CON damage, I can't see it taking you down past effective CON 2.

I suspect that I would have the character be alive, but try to convey that she is in a bizarre state. add, "You are in a very strange and unpleasant state you've never experienced before. You suspect that you should be dead, and only the power of this ring is supporting you. You are certain that if the ring comes off, even for a second, you will die."

I might invent some other effect that comes from it, such as a cleric losing the ability, or possibly merely being unwilling, to turn undead, while recognizing that she is herself essentially a corpse kept animate only through magic. (Would Turn Undead work on such a character? Even if not, would she feel it?) A necromancer character might even gain some insight about death through the experience. In any event, I would try to portray it as a unique mystical state.

Does anybody have any rules reference to a situation in which your base STAT matters as well as your effective stat?

[Telonius]

Does anybody have any rules reference to a situation in which your base STAT matters as well as your effective stat?

Any other situation where you take damage to a temporarily-adjusted stat would be similar. A Raging Barbarian taking strength or con damage; anyone under the effects of an (animal)'s (stat) spell taking damage to the stat; a Rogue wearing Gloves of Dex screws up disarming the trap and takes poison damage to Dexterity.

[SinsI]

With ability scores you have an equation:
total (min 0) = base + racial + enhancement + innate + level up - damage - drain + penalty +/- other modifiers
Total 0 = 10 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 -15 - 0 + 0
Because the total cannot be a negative number, the total stays at 0. That doesn't mean you didn't take 15 damage, it just means the end of the equation is set to 0 when it would be lower otherwise. And if you're wondering, you add a penalty because penalties are generally given as negative numbers while damage and drain are generally given as positive numbers.

The problem is that the ruling can be read not as "total (min 0)", but as "calculate the following using non-negative numbers", so that 2 - 15 + 10 can give either 0 or 10 as the result depending on the order.

Your own money in your wallet are your base Con. Your money on the debit card are the +2 bonus from item. Damage is stealing money from the wallet - but it doesn't affect the debit card.

[danzibr]

The fact that the SRD (well, dandwiki was quoted, but I assume it's the same in the SRD) says ability scores can't be negative means, unfortunately and to me at least, that if your Str hits 0 then you remove the belt and equip it again (well, someone does it for you) your Str would be positive again.

It doesn't make you un-dead but I don't see how anyone can argue your Str remains 0. I've encountered this sort of glitch in video games.

[Segev]

Hm. I hadn't thought about the "remove belt of strength after being drained to 0 strength, reapply belt" tactic, but it seems technically valid as a way to put you right back at 4 str (assuming BoS +4).

This also means that a guy possessed by a Fiend of Possession who's being an ally is functionally immune to stat draining to 0: his buddy can always quit granting him that bonus and then grant it again. (Doesn't work for Con, and you're still at a measely 4, but...it's something.)

I was originally going to hypothesize that wearing two +Str items that overlapped would have the other one kick in when the first was "drained," due to overlap ceasing as you hit 0, but realized that overlap just means that "both" are drained simultaneously by the same damage. (Removing/reapplying either would work, however, as before.)

[Andezzar]

So, if you are damaged beyond your limit and reduced to 0, can you keep taking damage? Yes. It's going to be a much longer process for you to heal that damage naturally. Please quote that rule, if it exists. Contrary to hit points ability scores do not have a current and maximum/base value. There is only one ability score. It does not matter if an ability score of 10 takes 10 or 9000 damage. After the damage is applied the score is 0, because ability scores cannot go below 0. Any subsequent increase is added to 0, not to the theoretical -8990. Any subsequent ability damage is subtracted from 0 as well, which again results in a score of 0.

[Segev]

Contrary to hit points ability scores do not have a current and maximum/base value.

This is not technically entirely true; if it were, there would not be a maximum beyond which Restoration and ability score healing could raise your ability scores. There is definitely a "maximum" score that is the cap for how much you can "heal." (e.g. if I take 1 point of Strength damage, I can heal only 1 point; I can't heal 2, 3, or 4 points and wind up with more than I started with.)

[Sliver]

Diehard makes you immortal! (well, you already are, it just makes being immortal more fun)

Technically, Diehard does nothing.


Knocked out and helpless. Unconsciousness can result from having current hit points between -1 and -9, or from nonlethal damage in excess of current hit points.


When reduced to negative hit points, you may choose to act as if you were disabled, rather than dying.

You can act as dying rather than disabled, but it doesn't negate the unconsciousness that is caused by having more nonlethal damage (at least 0) than your current hit points (a negative number).

[Segev]

Huh, I could have sworn that Diehard's text was something to the effect of being able to act normally when disabled or dying, though still taking damage for doing so. (This WOULD negate the nonlethal rule about unconsciousness until you hit -10 and were dead. At which point the nonlethal unconsciousness rule would kick in, and you being dead would make you unconscious.)

[Psyren]

Technically, Diehard does nothing.





You can act as dying rather than disabled, but it doesn't negate the unconsciousness that is caused by having more nonlethal damage (at least 0) than your current hit points (a negative number).

I'd say that this is a case of specific trumping general. Disabled:


A character with 0 hit points, or one who has negative hit points but has become stable and conscious, is disabled. A disabled character may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can she take full-round actions). She moves at half speed.

In other words, dying/dead say "you're unconscious." Disabled says "you can act, and here are the specific actions you can take."

Amusingly, neither unconscious nor helpless specify that you can't act (under any circumstances), therefore disabled's "you can take X actions" wins.

[Sliver]

It's not really a case of specific vs general. You are both unconscious and disabled. If one prohibits certain actions, it doesn't matter if the other allows them, unless you argue that a disabled and stunned character can still take actions.

Unconscious:

"Knocked out and helpless. Unconsciousness can result from having current hit points between -1 and -9, or from nonlethal damage in excess of current hit points."

Helpless:

"A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (-5 modifier). Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target). Ranged attacks gets no special bonus against helpless targets. Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets."

Having Dex of 0 means:

"Dexterity 0 means that the character cannot move at all. He stands motionless, rigid, and helpless."

Obviously, an unconscious character can't take actions that requires movement, and is instead just standing there motionless.

[Psyren]

You can still perform actions that don't require movement though, like using an SLA. Furthermore, Disabled explicitly states you can move, so now you've got unstoppable force + immovable object and the DM has to weigh in on a case-by-case basis.

[Segev]

Yeeeaaaah, Str 0 might've been a better choice. You also can't move, then, but you're limp instead of rigid.

[Sliver]

You can still perform actions that don't require movement though, like using an SLA. Furthermore, Disabled explicitly states you can move, so now you've got unstoppable force + immovable object and the DM has to weigh in on a case-by-case basis.

So you are arguing that a disabled and stunned character can take actions?

[Psyren]

So you are arguing that a disabled and stunned character can take actions?

A disabled one explicitly can. Not sure where you're getting stunned from.

[Sliver]

I'm saying that, if we follow your reasoning, a character that is both disabled and stunned at the same time is not explicitly forbidden from taking actions, and a DM will have to step in to determine it one way or another.

[Andezzar]

I'm saying that, if we follow your reasoning, a character that is both disabled and stunned at the same time is not explicitly forbidden from taking actions, and a DM will have to step in to determine it one way or another.This only applies if you, erroneously IMHO, assume that the disabled condition gives the character permission to take a move or standard action instead of seeing it as restricting his normally available actions to one of those two. Unfortunately the writers did not explicitly say so.
A disabled character may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can she take full-round actions). She moves at half speed.



A disabled one explicitly can. Not sure where you're getting stunned from.
He is talking about a character that is both disabled and stunned. This is analogous to the character with the diehard feat at -1 to -9 HP. Such a character is treated disabled instead of dying as per the feat, but he still has more nonlethal damage (0) than HP (-1 to -9), which normally renders a character unconscious. Since the diehard feat does not prevent that condition from applying, even a character with the feat is unconscious.

So if you want diehard to work by RAW, you would have to apply the same logic to a character that is both stunned and disabled, meaning the character can act as if disabled (single move or standard action), instead of being as restricted as a character that is subjected to both conditions.

Of course you can easily fix this problem at your table by adding the benefit of not rendering a dying character with the diehard feat unconscious.

[Psyren]

I'm saying that, if we follow your reasoning, a character that is both disabled and stunned at the same time is not explicitly forbidden from taking actions, and a DM will have to step in to determine it one way or another.

I'm still confused at your question. Stunned does explicitly say "can't take actions." Unconscious does not. They are not comparable.

Unconscious says you can't move - but not all actions require movement.

[Andezzar]

I'm still confused at your question. Stunned does explicitly say "can't take actions." Unconscious does not. They are not comparable.

Unconscious says you can't move - but not all actions require movement.A helpless character is also "completely at an opponent’s mercy" If he could still act in any way he would not be completely at the opponent's mercy. Even if we only see an unconscious character as unable to move, there is still a contradiction with the disabled condition. A disabled character can move a half speed, an unconscious character cannot. So what happens if a character has both conditions? I'd say both restrictions apply and the more severe restriction overrides the less severe one i.e. he cannot move.

[Sliver]

I'm not sure how you are confused by my question, unless you aren't reading what you are typing. This is what you said:


Furthermore, Disabled explicitly states you can move, so now you've got unstoppable force + immovable object and the DM has to weigh in on a case-by-case basis.

If Disabled says you can move, then you are saying that anything that would prevent movement doesn't automatically work, but needs to be determined by the DM.

[Psyren]

I'm not sure how you are confused by my question, unless you aren't reading what you are typing. This is what you said:



If Disabled says you can move, then you are saying that anything that would prevent movement doesn't automatically work, but needs to be determined by the DM.

Oh that. You're right, stunned would take precedence, but you're also wrong, Diehard turns "dying" into "disabled" (because it says "rather than") and therefore there is no conflict to resolve between the two.

[Andezzar]

There is no conflict between dying and disabled, but between disabled and unconscious. The latter gets applied because the character will always have more nonlethal damage(0 or more) than HP (-1 to -9). the diehard feat does not prevent this application.
If however you say disabled overrides unconscious (by giving permission to do something instead of restricting the normally available actions) you would also have to say that disabled overrides stunned.

[Sliver]

Now I'm the confused one, because I haven't remotely talked about Diehard in relation to Stunned.

Diehard turns Dying into Disabled, but you are still at less HP than you have nonlethal damage, so you are Unconscious as well as Disabled. You are saying that Disabled allows movement, but because Unconscious forbids it, as an effect of having 0 Dex, so it is up to the DM. That's why I brought up Stunned. If you would be both Disabled and Stunned, under your reading, then it also up to the DM. But now you are saying that no, Stunned takes precedence. Well, why Stunned takes precedence over Disabled in terms of restrictions, but when it is Unconscious vs Disabled, it is up to the DM?

I am not talking about whether unconscious forbids mental actions, but your claim that Disabled allows movement even if you have other effects that forbid it.

Edit: Also - what Andezzar said. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

There is no conflict between dying and disabled, but between disabled and unconscious. The latter gets applied because the character will always have more nonlethal damage(0 or more) than HP (-1 to -9). the diehard feat does not prevent this application.
If however you say disabled overrides unconscious (by giving permission to do something instead of restricting the normally available actions) you would also have to say that disabled overrides stunned.

I guess this depends on how specific you consider each of these rules to be. Stunned is a specific condition that states you can't act. The rule about nonlethal damage in excess of current HP knocking you out is not a condition, and is thus more general. So I think it's possible for Diehard to override one and not the other.

[Taelas]

This is not technically entirely true; if it were, there would not be a maximum beyond which Restoration and ability score healing could raise your ability scores. There is definitely a "maximum" score that is the cap for how much you can "heal." (e.g. if I take 1 point of Strength damage, I can heal only 1 point; I can't heal 2, 3, or 4 points and wind up with more than I started with.)

That's because you do not heal "Strength". You heal "Strength damage." When you have 18 Str, and you take 12 Str damage, you have an effective Str of 6. Your actual Str score is still 18, though. When healing the ability damage, you remove from the 12 Str damage you've taken -- you don't add to your Str score.

Each ability score only has one value; there is no minimum and no maximum. You can apply temporary or permanent buffs or debuffs to that value, which is what ability damage is. With hit points, you have a current hit point value and a maximum hit point value. When taking damage, you subtract it from your current hit point value.




Technically, Diehard does nothing.





You can act as dying rather than disabled, but it doesn't negate the unconsciousness that is caused by having more nonlethal damage (at least 0) than your current hit points (a negative number).

That is not how unconsciousness works. You can explicitly become stable and conscious while at negative hit points. Also note that unconsciousness can result from those conditions; it does not state unequivocally that it always does.

[Segev]

That's because you do not heal "Strength". You heal "Strength damage." When you have 18 Str, and you take 12 Str damage, you have an effective Str of 6. Your actual Str score is still 18, though. When healing the ability damage, you remove from the 12 Str damage you've taken -- you don't add to your Str score.

Each ability score only has one value; there is no minimum and no maximum. You can apply temporary or permanent buffs or debuffs to that value, which is what ability damage is. With hit points, you have a current hit point value and a maximum hit point value. When taking damage, you subtract it from your current hit point value.

Except no, you just said that there is an actual and effective value.

This is reinforced by the fact that, without an "effective" value, speaking of being at 0 ability score would be meaningless, as would speaking of being unable to take damage that drives you below it.

[Taelas]

Except no, you just said that there is an actual and effective value.

This is reinforced by the fact that, without an "effective" value, speaking of being at 0 ability score would be meaningless, as would speaking of being unable to take damage that drives you below it.

I suppose it is only a semantic difference. I would say that while one is about losing something (hit points), the other is about gaining something (Str damage). While you do "gain" hit point damage, you do not "lose" Str.

[Segev]

I suppose it is only a semantic difference. I would say that while one is about losing something (hit points), the other is about gaining something (Str damage). While you do "gain" hit point damage, you do not "lose" Str.

Except that it speaks quite specifically of being at 0 Ability score. It even comes up in the OP. If you could have Ability Damage in excess of your Ability Score, it would not need to speak of stopping at 0. In fact, it's backwards to speak of stopping at 0 when you mean to say damage exceeds score.

When D&D 3.5 wants to talk in those terms, it uses the language found in nonlethal damage.

[Andezzar]

The value of the ability damage can be greater than your ability score, however your ability score can never be smaller than 0. Once it is zero no amount of ability damage will reduce it further and any increase will directly contribute to your ability score.

[Jay R]

The value of the ability damage can be greater than your ability score, however your ability score can never be smaller than 0. Once it is zero no amount of ability damage will reduce it further and any increase will directly contribute to your ability score.

But is that the limit of your base score or your current score? [If you answer, please cite the rule; I'm not looking for guesses, opinions, or house rules.]



Does anybody have any rules reference to a situation in which your base STAT matters as well as your effective stat?

Any other situation where you take damage to a temporarily-adjusted stat would be similar. A Raging Barbarian taking strength or con damage; anyone under the effects of an (animal)'s (stat) spell taking damage to the stat; a Rogue wearing Gloves of Dex screws up disarming the trap and takes poison damage to Dexterity.

I know that, but it doesn't address my question. Does anybody know of a rule about temporary modifiers in which anything is affected by the state of the base score. For instance, a situation in which a base of 10 with a +6 is treated differently than a base 16 with no plusses?

I'm looking for a rule to apply when the base CON is zero, while wearing a ring of +2 CON. Nobody has cited any rule to tell us whether this is a person with temporary CON of 2, or a corpse wearing good loot.

[Andezzar]

But is that the limit of your base score or your current score? [If you answer, please cite the rule; I'm not looking for guesses, opinions, or house rules.]The rules do not make a distinction between the two, because there isn't or have you found the books using either of those terms?


I know that, but it doesn't address my question. Does anybody know of a rule about temporary modifiers in which anything is affected by the state of the base score. For instance, a situation in which a base of 10 with a +6 is treated differently than a base 16 with no plusses?Nope.

[Taelas]

Int bonus to skills is the only thing I can think of.

[Andezzar]

Int bonus to skills is the only thing I can think of.Right, I even mentioned that one earlier. This however is explicitly spelled out as working differently than the general rule

The transmuted creature becomes smarter. The spell grants a +4 enhancement bonus to Intelligence, adding the usual benefits to Intelligence-based skill checks and other uses of the Intelligence modifier. Wizards (and other spellcasters who rely on Intelligence) affected by this spell do not gain any additional bonus spells for the increased Intelligence, but the save DCs for spells they cast while under this spell’s effect do increase. This spell doesn’t grant extra skill points.

This device is a light cord with a small gem set so that it rests upon the forehead of the wearer. The headband adds to the wearer’s Intelligence score in the form of an enhancement bonus of +2, +4, or +6. This enhancement bonus does not earn the wearer extra skill points when a new level is attained; use the unenhanced Intelligence bonus to determine skill points.

[Sagetim]

Someone mentioned the Dndwiki, and I had to say: No, it is not the same as the SRD. It is the home of houserules and other such things. I would not trust it as a reliable source if you want RAW information. It might have cool and interesting stuff there, but I don't think it replicates the SRD in any meaningful way. If you want the SRD, I'm pretty sure it's still up on the wizards archive as a zip file (or series of zip files), and there's the d20srd website.

To get back to the topic at hand: let's look at the barbarian's rage class ability from the SRD:


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.) While raging, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except for Balance, Escape Artist, Intimidate, and Ride), the Concentration skill, or any abilities that require patience or concentration, nor can he cast spells or activate magic items that require a command word, a spell trigger (such as a wand), or spell completion (such as a scroll) to function. He can use any feat he has except Combat Expertise, item creation feats, and metamagic feats. A fit of rage lasts for a number of rounds equal to 3 + the character’s (newly improved) Constitution modifier. A barbarian may prematurely end his rage. At the end of the rage, the barbarian loses the rage modifiers and restrictions and becomes fatigued (-2 penalty to Strength, -2 penalty to Dexterity, can’t charge or run) for the duration of the current encounter (unless he is a 17th-level barbarian, at which point this limitation no longer applies).

A barbarian can fly into a rage only once per encounter. At 1st level he can use his rage ability once per day. At 4th level and every four levels thereafter, he can use it one additional time per day (to a maximum of six times per day at 20th level). Entering a rage takes no time itself, but a barbarian can do it only during his action, not in response to someone else’s action.

Snipped from that we have: 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.)

So, a barbarian has an increase to his con score from his rage. Because his con score has cone up, his hp limit has gone up as well, and when his hp limit goes back down when the rage ends, he loses that extra hp (Which can get him killed, if his hp is low enough at the time).

So, if you were to have a temporary bonus to your con form another source, such as a belt of +2 con, then you would be treated as if your con score was that much higher. Your maximum hp would be higher, and when the belt is removed, your maximum and current hp would go down to match that loss.

This implies that the bonus to your ability score is part of you. Now, that's different for intelligence bonuses, I imagine for game balance purposes and to prevent people from just getting headbands of intellect that they put on right before they level up. It's worth mentioning that pathfinder has headbands that grant int work differently, giving you access to a skill with full ranks per +2 int mod. But we're talking 3.5, not why pathfinder has rules that make more sense.

So, if your enhanced ability score is part of you, then it counts for tallying up damage. The enhancement bonus is not floating around seperately from your body, it's grooving on next to your con score, and thus when your con score takes damage, the enhancement bonused amount can be afflicted to. But the item isn't taking the damage, you are.

So, continuing in this line of reasoning, if you have a +2 con belt on, and have a base of 10 con, then you are walking around with 12 con. If you take 9 con damage, then you have 3 con left while you have the belt on. If you take the belt off, you have 1 con. If you put the belt back on, you have 3 con again. But that didn't remove damage that was done to you. Because it didn't heal any of the damage done to you. You still have 8 con damage, and taking the belt off and putting it back on doesn't heal you, it just adds to your con score while it's on.

To take this to a different ability score, since having 0 con is deadly, we'll say you have gloves of +2 strength, and 10 strength normally. This gives you 12 strength. If you take 12 strength damage, you are down to 0 strength. But if you have the gloves taken off, you are still at 0 strength. If the gloves are put back on, you are still at 0 strength. Because taking items that boost your ability scores off and on does not heal the damage.

So, in my opinion, someone with 4 con and a +2 con item that took 6 con damage is a corpse with a nice item on it. While the same person with only 4 con on is in very dangerous territory and better hope they don't get dispelled or the item removed, because a successful dispel would suppress the item for 1d4 rounds, killing the person.

[Sliver]

To take this to a different ability score, since having 0 con is deadly, we'll say you have gloves of +2 strength, and 10 strength normally. This gives you 12 strength. If you take 12 strength damage, you are down to 0 strength. But if you have the gloves taken off, you are still at 0 strength. If the gloves are put back on, you are still at 0 strength. Because taking items that boost your ability scores off and on does not heal the damage.

The problem is, the game doesn't tell you to keep track of the damage, only of how much you currently have. It explicitly tells you not to do it.


Keeping track of negative ability score points is never necessary. A character’s ability score can’t drop below 0.

Let's take your example. If you have 10+2 strength and you took 12 strength damage, you now have 0 strength. You remove the +2 strength item, and you still have 0 strength. You get healed for 10 strength damage, how much strength do you have? It was 0, so now you have 10 strength, not 8. Once you put the item back on, it's 12, not 10. To do otherwise would go explicitly against the rules.

The game gives you a minimum of 0 to your score. Anything beyond it is wasted. If something reduces your maximum, the additional damage isn't stored in a bank for later use.

[Curmudgeon]

If you want the SRD, I'm pretty sure it's still up on the wizards archive as a zip file (or series of zip files), and there's the d20srd website.
.RTF (Rich Text Format) files, actually. The official System Reference Document is here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35). Note that this official SRD does not include all the errata which have been integrated into The Hypertext d20 SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/index.htm).


If you have 10+2 strength and you took 12 strength damage, you now have 0 strength. You remove the +2 strength item, and you still have 0 strength.
That example doesn't work very well, because the bolded part is impossible.
Strength 0 means that the character cannot move at all. He lies helpless on the ground. Someone else could steal your magic item as you lie there, helpless, and after a day's rest you'd be up to 1 Strength.

[Sliver]

Telekinesis can probably do it. Regardless, who removes the item is irrelevant to the point.

[Taelas]

To take this to a different ability score, since having 0 con is deadly, we'll say you have gloves of +2 strength, and 10 strength normally. This gives you 12 strength. If you take 12 strength damage, you are down to 0 strength. But if you have the gloves taken off, you are still at 0 strength. If the gloves are put back on, you are still at 0 strength. Because taking items that boost your ability scores off and on does not heal the damage.

This is not at all clear. You explicitly cannot have below 0 in an ability score, so if the gloves are removed, you have only 10 Str damage. Whether or not your Str damage goes up to 12 again when the gloves are put back on... Well. There's no rule in place for that eventuality.

Personally I would rule that you would have 2 Str afterwards (so your Str damage essentially goes down by 2). It's just plain easier to deal with. The other options get messy. Do you have to heal 10 Str damage or 12 to be at full unenhanced Str again? If the first, what happens when you put the gloves back on -- do you now suddenly have 2 Str damage?

[Sagetim]

The problem is, the game doesn't tell you to keep track of the damage, only of how much you currently have. It explicitly tells you not to do it.



Let's take your example. If you have 10+2 strength and you took 12 strength damage, you now have 0 strength. You remove the +2 strength item, and you still have 0 strength. You get healed for 10 strength damage, how much strength do you have? It was 0, so now you have 10 strength, not 8. Once you put the item back on, it's 12, not 10. To do otherwise would go explicitly against the rules.

The game gives you a minimum of 0 to your score. Anything beyond it is wasted. If something reduces your maximum, the additional damage isn't stored in a bank for later use.

I'm pretty sure you're supposed to keep track of damage, even if the game doesn't explicitly state that you have to. After all, if the gm says 'you take 8 strength damage from that ray of blahblahblah' and you don't note the adjustment properly, then you take 3 strength Drain as well, and don't note that properly, then your strength is 'down by 11'. But Drain and Damage are very different animals when it comes to recovery methods, so wouldn't it make sense to keep track of the ways your ability scores have been adjusted, be it enhancement, drain, damage, penalty, or bonus?


Also: Right, I forgot that the srd website has the errata worked in too. That's nice. And my point about dndwiki being not-the-srd stands. >.>


Edit to Taelas: As far as I'm concerned, I would rule that you keep noting strength damage, even if it would bring the total down below 0. Taking the gloves off doesn't erase the damage, only for it to come back when the gloves are put back on. So, yes, if you're left being hit by a nasty creature doing strength damage every round then you keep accumulating it until rescued. And that's where high level magic would come in handy, since it would erase All the damage. There's a case to be made for not counting damage beyond whatever would reduce you to 0, but I would rather just keep counting it to avoid having situations where you can take an item that boosts an ability score off and put it back on to effectively heal yourself.

[SinsI]

It's pretty clear that ability scores are treated as physical entities that you can't have a "negative amount" of.
If you have 10 bottles that were full of water, and someone makes you empty 12 of them, you will end up with 10 empty bottles, not with 10 bottles and IOU for 2 more.
Enchancement bonuses from items are "everfull bottles", since if you put them aside and put them back it changes the number of your full bottles. It also means that you can't empty them at all.

[Sagetim]

It's pretty clear that ability scores are treated as physical entities that you can't have a "negative amount" of.
If you have 10 bottles that were full of water, and someone makes you empty 12 of them, you will end up with 10 empty bottles, not with 10 bottles and IOU for 2 more.
Enchancement bonuses from items are "everfull bottles", since if you put them aside and put them back it changes the number of your full bottles. It also means that you can't empty them at all.

I'm pretty sure there's a jump in the logic where I bolded it, I'm just too tired to try to bring that to light right now.

[Taelas]

It directly says that it is never necessary to keep track. So keeping track is pointless. That strongly implies any damage beyond what it would take you to go to 0 is outright removed.

[Sliver]

I'm pretty sure you're supposed to keep track of damage, even if the game doesn't explicitly state that you have to.

The game explicitly states that you aren't supposed to. Ability Damage and Ability Drain are different things, much like how lethal and nonlethal damage are different. Yes, they both work alongside each other, but they are healed differently.

If you took 9 damage to strength, out of base 10 and bonus 2, you are now at 3/12 strength. If you got 4 drained, you are at 0/8. Yes, you need to remember that 4 got drained, since you can use Restoration to get it. But you don't track that 1 point of strength damage that needs to heal.

If you someone removes your strength bonus item? You are down to 0/6, with 4 strength drained. They put it back on you? You are up to 2/8, with 4 drained.

Yes, I agree that it's silly, but it's RAW. I wouldn't allow my players to do it, but the game tells you to not keep track of damage in excess of your ability score.

[bekeleven]

I know that, but it doesn't address my question. Does anybody know of a rule about temporary modifiers in which anything is affected by the state of the base score. For instance, a situation in which a base of 10 with a +6 is treated differently than a base 16 with no plusses?

I can think of one.

Put on some gauntlets of ogre power.

Suddenly you will find that the game tracks 10 with a +6 enhancement bonus rather differently than a natural 16. So differently, in fact, that one just blew 4000 gold.

[Jay R]

I don't think there's a clear answer. The DM will have to make a judgment call. The crucial common sense principle is that you cannot apply a rule blindly in a situation that wasn't considered by the rules writer.

First of all, the STR 0 issue is different from the CON 0 issue, because at CON 0 you are dead. If somebody takes off the ring and replaces it, you're a corpse with good loot, having died when it came off.

So here are the rulings I would make:

1. A person with CON 12 should be functionally identical to a person with CON 10 and a +2 CON ring. So when they each take 10 damage, they each are functionally at CON 2. The only difference is that one of them dies if she takes off her ring.

2. A person wearing a ring, or gauntlets, of +2 STR who is knocked down to 0 STR can't move. Theoretically, by RAW, taking it off leaves him at STR 0, and replacing it moves him up to STR 2. That feels like using a rule in a situation it wasn't intended for, and I wouldn't allow it. I'd probably impose some recovery time. Perhaps the ring starts working for him when he has STR 1 or more again. If he hadn't been wearing the ring or gauntlets and then somebody puts them on him, I'd have a very difficult call to make, that I would make based on the situation. But I don't see any reason to believe the rule was intended to let you slip the ring off and on for an extra +2. I'd probably rule that the reduction took STR away from the person first, and from the ring second, so that ring doesn't function for the duration of the STR loss.

[Thought experiment. Somebody with STR 10, a ring of +2 STR, and Gauntlets +4. His functional STR is 14, since the ring doesn't stack with the gauntlets. He takes 14 STR drain. That reduces his temporary STR from 14 to 0. Does the ring start working, bringing him back up to STR 2?]

[Taelas]

Even if you have 14 Str damage, you still have a +4 enhancement bonus to Str. So no, that would do nothing.

[Segev]

[Thought experiment. Somebody with STR 10, a ring of +2 STR, and Gauntlets +4. His functional STR is 14, since the ring doesn't stack with the gauntlets. He takes 14 STR drain. That reduces his temporary STR from 14 to 0. Does the ring start working, bringing him back up to STR 2?]

Sadly, no. The ring was "exhausted" when he was down by 12. All that was keeping him up was the gauntlets.


And the example of "take it off and put it back on" still works; it just takes an ally able to do it. Your familiar, if you've previously instructed him, is smart enough. Any fellow PC could do it, too. If all you need is to be "on your feet," it's better than wasting a Restoration on you.

In fact, I'm thinking it might be a worthwhile investment for the party as a whole to keep a +2 item for each stat around, just so they can use these as triage items for their Ability-drained allies. (Constitution may not be needed; you're dead if that reached 0.)

[atemu1234]

I love these forums...

http://media.giphy.com/media/F7yLXA5fJ5sLC/giphy.gif