Taking actions after character death

[Immabozo]

This was taken from the thread "Ways to defend yourself against vorpal?" in an effort to continue discussion, but end the derailment of the OP's thread.

In response to numerous posts quoting the rule


When your nonlethal damage (in this case, 0) exceeds your current HP (in this case, -10) you fall unconscious

But why would you specify something when it has already been stated and is already so? If someone wins the Indi 500, would you describe his win as "He won only because he was driving"? Not unless you are afraid you are in a Chuck Norris joke.

No. Saying "X happens whenever Y condition is met" and then in a totally separate rule "In a case where Y applies, this happens" is redundant, unless there is a reason.

So Y condition is met. You are at -1. What happens?


When your character’s current hit points drop to between -1 and -9 inclusive, he’s dying.

A dying character immediately falls unconscious and can take no actions.

A dying character loses 1 hit point every round. This continues until the character dies or becomes stable (see below).

That is what happens. Now you are at -10! Sucks to be you! What happens?


When your character’s current hit points drop to -10 or lower, or if he takes massive damage (see above), he’s dead. A character can also die from taking ability damage or suffering an ability drain that reduces his Constitution to 0.

Ok... but, in game terms, what does dead mean?


The character’s hit points are reduced to -10, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The character’s soul leaves his body. Dead characters cannot benefit from normal or magical healing, but they can be restored to life via magic. A dead body decays normally unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death (depending on the spell or device). Either way, resurrected characters need not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other conditions that affect dead bodies.

Alright, that happens.

Now, dont get me wrong, from a perspective of a logical, not moronic, real human viewpoint, I get it. They are simplifying everything on the players and DM by not requiring you to know how the unconscious rules play with -hp to correctly play the game, and just put it side by side for ease of use.

BUT, it does create a RAW loophole. There IS a specification of when unconscious applies, at negative hp, we are specifying how they work at each of 10 steps. So the LACK of it being in the 10th step, DOES create a contradiction, in that in general, your -10 hp are less than your current nonlethal damage, 0, so you are unconscious, except, there are rules saying what does happen at negative hp, including specifying unconsciousness, so lack thereof in the case of -10, and other rules saying what happens, does create a contradiction.

So, at -10, the above quoted rules override and happen. None of them limit movement, or taking actions. You take a standard action and Iron Heart Surge away your condition of being dead.

EDIT: not to mention ways of dying that do not reduce you to -10 hp, spells, death from massive damage, etc. You are dead without being at negative hp, then this works even better, because the argument, the only counter argument, of being unconscious, doesn't apply, since you are above 0 hp at the time of death.

[Hazrond]

This was taken from the thread "Ways to defend yourself against vorpal?" in an effort to continue discussion, but end the derailment of the OP's thread.

In response to numerous posts quoting the rule



But why would you specify something when it has already been stated and is already so? If someone wins the Indi 500, would you describe his win as "He won only because he was driving"? Not unless you are afraid you are in a Chuck Norris joke.

No. Saying "X happens whenever Y condition is met" and then in a totally separate rule "In a case where Y applies, this happens" is redundant, unless there is a reason.

So Y condition is met. You are at -1. What happens?



That is what happens. Now you are at -10! Sucks to be you! What happens?



Ok... but, in game terms, what does dead mean?



Alright, that happens.

Now, dont get me wrong, from a perspective of a logical, not moronic, real human viewpoint, I get it. They are simplifying everything on the players and DM by not requiring you to know how the unconscious rules play with -hp to correctly play the game, and just put it side by side for ease of use.

BUT, it does create a RAW loophole. There IS a specification of when unconscious applies, at negative hp, we are specifying how they work at each of 10 steps. So the LACK of it being in the 10th step, DOES create a contradiction, in that in general, your -10 hp are less than your current nonlethal damage, 0, so you are unconscious, except, there are rules saying what does happen at negative hp, including specifying unconsciousness, so lack thereof in the case of -10, and other rules saying what happens, does create a contradiction.

So, at -10, the above quoted rules override and happen. None of them limit movement, or taking actions. You take a standard action and Iron Heart Surge away your condition of being dead.
You need to think of the wider consequences of your actions here, because if you Iron Heart Surge death, you just Iron Heart Surged DEATH, which means death does not exist, and therefore people cannot die

[KillianHawkeye]

Do you actually know what "being dead" means? You become a corpse. You no longer exist on this physical plane. Shuffled off this mortal coil, as it were. Sure, you can still move and take actions in the afterlife, but by your own quotations your soul has already left your body.

[Immabozo]

You need to think of the wider consequences of your actions here, because if you Iron Heart Surge death, you just Iron Heart Surged DEATH, which means death does not exist, and therefore people cannot die

If you IRS being magically asleep, or unconscious, or sickened, does that mean that the condition no longer exists in the game world? No. So, no that doesn't happen, lol. But you made me think for a minute.


Do you actually know what "being dead" means? You become a corpse. You no longer exist on this physical plane. Shuffled off this mortal coil, as it were. Sure, you can still move and take actions in the afterlife, but by your own quotations your soul has already left your body.

Can you point me to RAW that dictates the need of a soul to do things? To act? To take actions? As far as I can tell, you just dont have a soul, and then you can IRS away the state of having no soul.

[Malimar]

Where are you seeing the rule that says the "nonlethal damage > current HP = unconscious" ceases to apply when you are dead?

[Immabozo]

Where are you seeing the rule that says the "nonlethal damage > current HP = unconscious" ceases to apply when you are dead?

Read my post. Specific trump general. The rules governing what happens at -10 hp and character death are stated. These are specific and, as I said, the -1 to -9 steps SPECIFY unconsciousness, and -10 does not and the argument is posted in my OP. Please read the post again for the answer, according to my arguement

[Malimar]

Read my post. Specific trump general. The rules governing what happens at -10 hp and character death are stated. These are specific and, as I said, the -1 to -9 steps SPECIFY unconsciousness, and -10 does not and the argument is posted in my OP. Please read the post again for the answer, according to my arguement

I did read your post. You're making assumptions that aren't supported by the rules. The only way "specific trumps general" applies is if Dead is somehow mutually exclusive with Unconscious, and nothing you've quoted indicates that's the case.

[Immabozo]

I did read your post. You're making assumptions that aren't supported by the rules. The only way "specific trumps general" applies is if Dead is somehow mutually exclusive with Unconscious, and nothing you've quoted indicates that's the case.

I never said that and you are assuming. I am stating, per the rules, you are not unconcious, the condition is not applied to you, it is magically gone, per the specific rules governing negative HP, at -10 hp

[ben-zayb]

Congrats on finally discovering one of the oldest "dysfunctions" in D&D 3.5!:smalltongue:

[Immabozo]

Congrats on finally discovering one of the oldest "dysfunctions" in D&D 3.5!:smalltongue:

Haha, thank you!

[Douglas]

I never said that and you are assuming. I am stating, per the rules, you are not unconcious, the condition is not applied to you, it is magically gone, per the specific rules governing negative HP, at -10 hp
That would be true if the rules about -10 hp/dead specifically stated that you are not unconscious. They do not. Instead, they simply don't mention unconsciousness at all. They leave the issue to be governed by other rules without alteration, and other rules state that you are unconscious.

You are conflating "it doesn't say X" with "it says not X". Your argument requires the latter, but what we've actually got is the former.

[ben-zayb]

That would be true if the rules about -10 hp/dead specifically stated that you are not unconscious. They do not. Instead, they simply don't mention unconsciousness at all. They leave the issue to be governed by other rules without alteration, and other rules state that you are unconscious.

You are conflating "it doesn't say X" with "it says not X". Your argument requires the latter, but what we've actually got is the former.

Actually, the Dysfunction Handbook already has that covered: Unconsciousness's only real mechanical effect is making you Helpless, which in turn treats your DEX as though it's 0, which in turn considers you as Paralyzed, so you can still make purely mental actions while dead.

[Immabozo]

That would be true if the rules about -10 hp/dead specifically stated that you are not unconscious. They do not. Instead, they simply don't mention unconsciousness at all. They leave the issue to be governed by other rules without alteration, and other rules state that you are unconscious.

You are conflating "it doesn't say X" with "it says not X". Your argument requires the latter, but what we've actually got is the former.


But why would you specify something when it has already been stated and is already so? If someone wins the Indi 500, would you describe his win as "He won only because he was driving"? Not unless you are afraid you are in a Chuck Norris joke.

No. Saying "X happens whenever Y condition is met" and then in a totally separate rule "In a case where Y applies, this happens" is redundant, unless there is a reason.

Rules of grammar still apply.

If I promise to give you an apple every day, and then say next week I will give you an apple 6/7 days of the week, the rules of grammar would say that you will not get an apple on that 7th day. Why on earth would I tell you that I would give you an apple only 6/7 days when I previously stated that you get one every day, unless you were not getting one on that one day?

Your argument depends on poor use of language, despite you, in actual fact, being correct, per RAI.

Although, as a stated


EDIT: not to mention ways of dying that do not reduce you to -10 hp, spells, death from massive damage, etc. You are dead without being at negative hp, then this works even better, because the argument, the only counter argument, of being unconscious, doesn't apply, since you are above 0 hp at the time of death.

circumvents the argument about being unconscious, due to being at above 0 HP at time of death

[MisterKaws]

That's why Maruts exist...

[Immabozo]

That's why Maruts exist...

Who? damn character limits

[Hecuba]

Rules of grammar still apply.

If I promise to give you an apple every day, and then say next week I will give you an apple 6/7 days of the week, the rules of grammar would say that you will not get an apple on that 7th day. Why on earth would I tell you that I would give you an apple only 6/7 days when I previously stated that you get one every day, unless you were not getting one on that one day?

Your argument depends on poor use of language, despite you, in actual fact, being correct, per RAI.

Although, as a stated

circumvents the argument about being unconscious, due to being at above 0 HP at time of death

First off, that's not grammar. Your argument might be called semantic if you focused more on phrasing, but you're not paying close enough attention to specific wording for that. The core of your argument is that there is some form of logical contradiction: the people, myself included, who are have made very specific arguments that that is not the case. You have not answered them.

For your argument to be correct, you need to have one of the following to cases be true:

The condition "dead" and the condition "unconscious" need to be incompatible under RAW. This would cause death to override unconsciousness as an escalating condition.
There needs to be a contradiction between the -1 to -9 HP = unconscious rule and the HP<nonlethal = unconscious rule. This would cause the HP rule's schedule to take precedence as more specific.


Thus far, you (and prior people arguing this rule) have not demonstrated either.

Case 1, if it exists, would be a simple citation. None has been given.

Regarding case 2, it is important to note that the two rules are separate, even if they substantially overlap.

If you move from -1 HP/ 4 nonlethal to 1 HP/2 nonlethal, you cease to be subject to the negative HP = unconscious rule but are still unconscious because of the non-lethal rule.
By the same token: were there some effect that caused negative non-lethal damage, that effect would make it possible to be unconscious from negative HP without being unconscious from non-lethal (and, interestingly enough, could create a situation where you could be both dead and conscious).


To create a contradiction in case 2 without presupposing case 1, you would need a situation where one of the rules explicitly says you should not be unconscious when the other says you should. The rules are not written in such a way as to invite that - they cover cases that cause unconsciousness, with consciousness being the condition when none of the cases are met.

Importantly, I (and I presume the others arguing against you are of similar opinion) am not arguing that this was an intentional rule structure designed to prevent actions while dead: the rules for unconsciousness and death are both too blatantly poorly designed for that. Instead my point is that, like a broken clock*, poorly written rules occasionally dysfunction in a way that creates the right outcome purely by chance.

Edit: P.S. - additionally, while this situation happens to avoid the specific dysfunction you are positing, it leaves plenty of other problems intact. For example, unconsciousness does not disable people nearly as much as death should. For another, dead people are considered willing. Also, they are helpless and subject to CFG attempts-- so you can kill them over and over again.

*I would say "twice a day," but 3.5 RAW is broken far more creatively than that. I would more expect it to run backwards for 1d3 minutes of every 2d9 hours. Except on Nuindais during Flocktime (according to the Northreckoning calendar), when it instead increments a random hand for each- let's call them sneezes- by left-handed wizards within the borders of the Thrane.

[Beheld]

Rules of grammar still apply.

If I promise to give you an apple every day, and then say next week I will give you an apple 6/7 days of the week, the rules of grammar would say that you will not get an apple on that 7th day. Why on earth would I tell you that I would give you an apple only 6/7 days when I previously stated that you get one every day, unless you were not getting one on that one day?

So what you are saying is that when the rules state that you are stunned when someone casts Ray of Stun at you, that actually wakes you up, cures your nausea, and brings you back to life?

Because the rules for stun don't say that you are still nauseas, unconscious, or dead, so therefore they "contradict!" ?

Because no, that's wrong. The rule that says you are unconscious and the rule that says you are unconscious are different rules that don't contradict at all, so if one of them applies, you are unconscious, and if both apply, you are unconscious.

If you are at -14 HP, then you are dead and unconscious, because one rule does not magically make the other not exist since they don't contradict.

[dextercorvia]

EDIT: not to mention ways of dying that do not reduce you to -10 hp, spells, death from massive damage, etc. You are dead without being at negative hp, then this works even better, because the argument, the only counter argument, of being unconscious, doesn't apply, since you are above 0 hp at the time of death.

The others have handled the 'It doesn't say I'm unconscious in this specific case not trumping that it says you are unconscious in the general case," so I'll tackle this one.


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

[Immabozo]

So what you are saying is that when the rules state that you are stunned when someone casts Ray of Stun at you, that actually wakes you up, cures your nausea, and brings you back to life?

Because the rules for stun don't say that you are still nauseas, unconscious, or dead, so therefore they "contradict!" ?

Because no, that's wrong. The rule that says you are unconscious and the rule that says you are unconscious are different rules that don't contradict at all, so if one of them applies, you are unconscious, and if both apply, you are unconscious.

If you are at -14 HP, then you are dead and unconscious, because one rule does not magically make the other not exist since they don't contradict.

This argument is really confusing.

I am not saying to rules contradict by the nature of the rule itself. Its like if you ALWAYS have a +10 enhancement bonus to your spot check, but circumstantially get only racial bonuses to your spot checks right now. The rules don't EXPLICITLY contradict each other, so the open spot where you would have otherwise had a bonus, overrides, because your goggles say you always have it? No! So why would this rule work differently. Nonlethal damage > current HP = unconsciousness. But at negative HP, at each step along the way X happens. BUT THERE IS A HOLE THERE! FILL IT WITH A DIFFERENT RULE!

No, it specifies what happens. There is a specific rule specifying what happens at negative HP, which includes which steps you are unconscious at. This is very specific. So that is what happens, and that is the rule governing negative HP.


The others have handled the 'It doesn't say I'm unconscious in this specific case not trumping that it says you are unconscious in the general case," so I'll tackle this one.

Where is this from?

[Beheld]

No, it specifies what happens. There is a specific rule specifying what happens at negative HP, which includes which steps you are unconscious at. This is very specific. So that is what happens, and that is the rule governing negative HP.

There is also a different specific rule that specifies what happens. It specifies that you are unconscious whenever your HP is lower than your non-lethal damage. This is very specific. So when you are at -14HP, and the one rules says "you are dead" and the other rule says "you are unconscious" you are both dead and unconscious, and you are not magically not unconscious.

A rule that says "You are unconscious in circumstances X" does not contradict a rule that says "you are unconscious in circumstances Y." Being at -14HP doesn't make you immune to the sleep spell, why would it make you immune to the rules for nonlethal damage?

[Hecuba]

Its like if you ALWAYS have a +10 enhancement bonus to your spot check, but circumstantially get only racial bonuses to your spot checks right now. The rules don't EXPLICITLY contradict each other,
(Emphasis mine)
Actually, in your given example, the rules do explicitly contradict each other: if the check indicates that you only get a racial spot check in situation x, then all bonuses other than the racial bonus are explicitly overridden. The word "only" actively excludes bonuses other than the ones it specifies.

In contrast, there HP rules for death and unconsciousness do not specify anywhere that you only have condition dead. They make no indication that you cease to have other conditions applied from other rules, be it unconsciousness from non-lethal damage exceeding current HP or cowering from fear escalation.

You can make a decent argument that you are no longer unconscious from the negative HP unconsciousness/death rules (since it can arguably be seen as a secheule of effects by HP), but you have not made any case for the other rules that cause unconsciousness ceasing to apply.

[Immabozo]

There is also a different specific rule that specifies what happens. It specifies that you are unconscious whenever your HP is lower than your non-lethal damage. This is very specific. So when you are at -14HP, and the one rules says "you are dead" and the other rule says "you are unconscious" you are both dead and unconscious, and you are not magically not unconscious.

A rule that says "You are unconscious in circumstances X" does not contradict a rule that says "you are unconscious in circumstances Y." Being at -14HP doesn't make you immune to the sleep spell, why would it make you immune to the rules for nonlethal damage?

Whenever X happens (nonlethal damage > current hp) then Y happens (unconsciousness) is a general rule. When at -1 to -10 and lower, Z happens, is a specific rule.


(Emphasis mine)
Actually, in your given example, the rules do explicitly contradict each other: if the check indicates that you only get a racial spot check in situation x, then all bonuses other than the racial bonus are explicitly overridden. The word "only" actively excludes bonuses other than the ones it specifies.

In contrast, there HP rules for death and unconsciousness do not specify anywhere that you only have condition dead. They make no indication that you cease to have other conditions applied from other rules, be it unconsciousness from non-lethal damage exceeding current HP or cowering from fear escalation.

You can make a decent argument that you are no longer unconscious from the negative HP unconsciousness/death rules (since it can arguably be seen as a secheule of effects by HP), but you have not made any case for the other rules that cause unconsciousness ceasing to apply.

You are right about my example, so it is a poor example. But imagine a different wording that I currently lack the ability to come up with, which does not explicitly exclude your other bonuses to your check, but says in this circumstance you get your racial bonus. Why would it specify getting a racial bonus to a check that you always get your racial bonus to? Why is mentioning it here special? There must be a reason! Maybe circumstantially you would normally get no bonuses, maybe it's because you only get that bonus, maybe it is something else, but there is a reason it is specified.

Sure, that reason could be lack of competence, proofreading, or understanding by the author of the rules, typo or a million other non game related reasons. But that is often the source of dysfunctions (see reaping mauler dysfunction, a grappling PrC making you bad at grappling). So, we can ignore this possibility and assume there is a real reason relating to how the game works (or doesn't work, as the case may be)

[dextercorvia]

Where is this from?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#deathAttacks

[Beheld]

Whenever X happens (nonlethal damage > current hp) then Y happens (unconsciousness) is a general rule. When at -1 to -10 and lower, Z happens, is a specific rule.

First off, both those rules are equally specific. Secondly, as you have been told 95959595959595959595959959595959595959595 times, a specific rule can only trump a general rule at all is if they actually contradict. The rule that says you are unconscious from -1 to -9 and dead at -10 or more DOES NOT CONTRADICTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT TTTTTTTTTT the rule that you are unconscious when your nonlethal damage exceeds your HP.

No matter how many times you try to make arbitrary distinctions about specificity, they only come up with a contradiction.

If someone casts Stun Ray, and you make the save, but you are already stunned for 12 rounds, you don't become unstunned after one round, because the rules saying you are stunned for one round don't contradict the rules that you are stunned for 12 rounds. You are just stunned and then still stunned.

[Hecuba]

Sure, that reason could be lack of competence, proofreading, or understanding by the author of the rules, typo or a million other non game related reasons. But that is often the source of dysfunctions (see reaping mauler dysfunction, a grappling PrC making you bad at grappling). So, we can ignore this possibility and assume there is a real reason relating to how the game works (or doesn't work, as the case may be)

Since you're the one arguing for a specific RAW dysfunction, it seems odd that you're suggesting we bypass dysfunctions with more generous reading. But anyhow...

I agree that poorly thought out wording is at least a part of several dysfunctions regarding the death/negative HP rules.

I am not arguing that there is no dysfunction in things that happen after death: as point of fact, I find it stupid that you can remain cowered, stunned, sickened, and unconscious after death.

Where I am (and I presume others are) disagreeing you is your specific position that you can take actions while dead. I agree that the dead condition itself does not cause that. But the unconscious condition does, and there is a (likely, saddly unplanned) overlap.

To the specifics of your revised example, I would say that that to would constitute a rule dysfunction (at least, if we discard the possibility that it would be a simple reminder): it would be a clear case where the intent of the rules and their actual outcome are different. Like the death issues, it would be an easy and straightforward dysfunction to remedy- but it would be a dysfunction still.


Whenever X happens (nonlethal damage > current hp) then Y happens (unconsciousness) is a general rule. When at -1 to -10 and lower, Z happens, is a specific rule.

No. They are equally specific, non-contradictory rules.

The only way to make them contradictory, and thus to make one more specific than the other, is to presuppose that death overrides other status effects (including, at least, unconsciousness). In doing so, you are postulating effects of death not explicitly attested by the rules.

Since the dysfunction you are trying to argue for its that the rules about death do not cover all the things they should, cherry picking some things they should cover but don't and handwaving them as not counting served only to undermine your position.

[Immabozo]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#deathAttacks

Thank you for showing me this.


First off, both those rules are equally specific. Secondly, as you have been told 95959595959595959595959959595959595959595 times, a specific rule can only trump a general rule at all is if they actually contradict. The rule that says you are unconscious from -1 to -9 and dead at -10 or more DOES NOT CONTRADICTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT TTTTTTTTTT the rule that you are unconscious when your nonlethal damage exceeds your HP.

No matter how many times you try to make arbitrary distinctions about specificity, they only come up with a contradiction.

If someone casts Stun Ray, and you make the save, but you are already stunned for 12 rounds, you don't become unstunned after one round, because the rules saying you are stunned for one round don't contradict the rules that you are stunned for 12 rounds. You are just stunned and then still stunned.

They are not "equally specific". One is a general rule whenever something happens and that something has a wide range of different ways it can be brought about and different situations. The other is a rule about how things go in a specific, narrow, situation with a 10 HP wide window, anything below the 10th point follows the same rules as -10, sure, but it is still a defined window. It is specific to what happens in that narrow window.

Saying what does happen, and then leaving out something that you were specifying does happen, is inferring that it does not happen in that step/at that point. So it does contradict. Otherwise, why would you need to specify something that would otherwise be true in all of the steps?


Since you're the one arguing for a specific RAW dysfunction, it seems odd that you're suggesting we bypass dysfunctions with more generous reading. But anyhow...

I agree that poorly thought out wording is at least a part of several dysfunctions regarding the death/negative HP rules.

I am not arguing that there is no dysfunction in things that happen after death: as point of fact, I find it stupid that you can remain cowered, stunned, sickened, and unconscious after death.

Where I am (and I presume others are) disagreeing you is your specific position that you can take actions while dead. I agree that the dead condition itself does not cause that. But the unconscious condition does, and there is a (likely, saddly unplanned) overlap.

To the specifics of your revised example, I would say that that to would constitute a rule dysfunction (at least, if we discard the possibility that it would be a simple reminder): it would be a clear case where the intent of the rules and their actual outcome are different. Like the death issues, it would be an easy and straightforward dysfunction to remedy- but it would be a dysfunction still.

No. They are equally specific, non-contradictory rules.

The only way to make them contradictory, and thus to make one more specific than the other, is to presuppose that death overrides other status effects (including, at least, unconsciousness). In doing so, you are postulating effects of death not explicitly attested by the rules.

Since the dysfunction you are trying to argue for its that the rules about death do not cover all the things they should, cherry picking some things they should cover but don't and handwaving them as not counting served only to undermine your position.

I am not cherry picking rules to apply and handwaiving inconvenient ones. You misunderstand me, or I am miscommunicating, if that is what you think. And I never meant using a more generous reading in the RAW argument, I am pointing out that something being written as a dysfunction (Elephant being better at jumping than house cats) could be a result of author incompetence or ignorance, but that fact has no bearing on how it was written.

I do like your thoughts about death dysfunctions.

I do not argue that you cannot take actions while unconscious, but I do argue that you are not unconscious at -10 hp, and there is a specific rule about what happens at the magic -10 hp. But I do not believe I will covince anyone else of this fact, nor do I believe that any of you will convince me that I am wrong.

[Beheld]

Saying what does happen, and then leaving out something that you were specifying does happen, is inferring that it does not happen in that step/at that point. So it does contradict. Otherwise, why would you need to specify something that would otherwise be true in all of the steps?

So being at -10 HP makes you immune to the sleep spell because it doesn't say that you are unconscious from sleeping? Do you not see how nonsense your idea of contradiction is? By that definition, all rules contradict with all rules at all times.

[Immabozo]

So being at -10 HP makes you immune to the sleep spell because it doesn't say that you are unconscious from sleeping? Do you not see how nonsense your idea of contradiction is? By that definition, all rules contradict with all rules at all times.

Yes, you are immune.


Area: One or more living creatures within a 10-ft.-radius burst

Emphasis mine

But no, your point about my point makes all rules contradict is wrong. Not all rules specify another rule applying to 9/10 of what this rule covers

[Hecuba]

They are not "equally specific".

Yes they are.
An example of how they could have been written (but weren't) such that -10 HP would be more specific might be: "From -1 to -9 HP, characters are unconscious because their current HP is always less than their nonlethal damage total. At -10, the become dead rather than unconscious."

But that's not how the rules were written. The -1 to -9 unconsciousness rule is not an application of the nonlethal damage unconsciousness rule: it's a separate, if redundant, rule under a different portion of the injury and death rules. The fact that the -1 to-9 rule ceases to apply at -10 does not have any bearing on whether the nonlethal rule applies.

Likewise, if you were to somehow acquire -10 nonlethal damage while at -9 HP, the fact that your nonlethal damage is not greater than your current HP would not change whether you were unconscious: the -1 to -9 rule would apply, even though the nonlethal rule no longer would.



So it does contradict. Otherwise, why would you need to specify something that would otherwise be true in all of the steps?

First: you want to use the word "implies," not "infers."

Second: consider a hypothetical disease -Chaos chills - in the game spread by, let's say, anarchist meerkats. Let's say anarchist meerkats have the following rules texts:

Anyone damaged anarchist meerkats must save vs disease or be subject to Chaos chills.
Chaos chills causes -2 to fort saves.
Diseased Bite: Characters damaged by anarchist meerkats' Bite attacks must save vs disease or take a -2 penalty to fort saves from disease. After 1 week, they must save again or transform into an anarchist meerkat.


Yes, were I to adjudicate that I would - in practice - not apply the penalty from both diseased Bite and chaos child.

As written, however, they are separate effects: someone damaged by an anarchist meerkat's Bite attack would have to save vs disease twice - once for diseased Bite and once for chaos chills. Moreover, while there would be a good case for the transformation being an escalation of diseased Bite (and thus perhaps overriding that instance of the fort penalty), there is no indication that the transformation cures chaos chills.

This hypothetical is deliberately analogous to the RAW of the situation under discussion. The only real difference is that two separate sources of fort penalties can be more damaging than one, while being unconscious for 2 reasons is no more problematic than being unconscious for one.

[Hecuba]

I do not argue that you cannot take actions while unconscious, but I do argue that you are not unconscious at -10 hp, and there is a specific rule about what happens at the magic -10 hp. But I do not believe I will covince anyone else of this fact, nor do I believe that any of you will convince me that I am wrong.

I assure you, if your logic and textual analysis are sound, I will be convinced. This far, they have not been.

Based on this reply, you seem to be making your case based on the idea that the -1 to -9 rule is a special case of the nonlethal rule. As I alluded to in my last post, that you'd certainly make your case for you - if the rules were written that way.

In actuality, however, there is no indication that the rules are related. They are presented under different sections of the Injury and Death rules and, unless I am missing something elsewhere in the text, they make no reference to each other.

Moreover, the condition summary (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#unconscious) explicitly notes them as separate causes of the unconscious condition.

The fact that the results of the two rules are redundant isn't particularly important: there are plenty of redundant rules.

[Immabozo]

I disagree, while saying that it applies to 9/10 steps does not explicitly say that it does not apply in the 10th step, several factors imply it. (you are correct about my terminology, thank you)

1, Nonlethal damage > current HP = unconscious and -1 to -9 = unconscious are two ways of saying the same rule, since it is impossible to have negative nonlethal, since it counts up, not down. Even if the latter example is a more specific application of the rule.

2. Since you are saying the same thing twice, there must be a reason.

3. Since it was explicitly spelled out at every other step, also being a redundant statement based on a general rule, and then not saying it at step 10, there is a reason it was left out.

I stand that the rule about unconsciousness at negative HP is a more specific branch of a general rule, or at least more general, and thus overrides, does create a contradiction, and governs what happens i.e. you are conscious when you are dead, or more accurately, not unconscious. That double negative hurts my brain, lemme rephrase. No longer unconscious. Still a double negative.

Does this imply a new state, neither conscious, nor unconscious?

[Irk]

The closest you can get to taking actions after your death is either some sort of contingency-esque effect or the reset trick from the psionic tricks compilation that's always making front page. At least as far as I know.

[Hecuba]

1, Nonlethal damage > current HP = unconscious and -1 to -9 = unconscious are two ways of saying the same rule, since it is impossible to have negative nonlethal, since it counts up, not down. Even if the latter example is a more specific application of the rule.

Again, the fact that they are redundant does not change the fact that they are explicitly sperate causes of unconsciousness.

I'll certainly agree that it would be far more sensible for the -1 to -9 rule to be a special case of the the nonlethal rule. The text of the condition summary (linked in my last post), however, makes it greatly clear that they two rules are treated by the text as unrelated.

Incidently, I find this particularly irritating, add it implies that it never occurred to the authors and editors that any number between -1 and -9 will always be less than any number greater than or equal to 0.

[tiercel]

Every time I see a "but, but, but! RAW!" thread like this I can't help but think of Red Mage and the Air Bud Clause (http://www.nuklearpower.com/2004/01/20/episode-374-so-many-valid-points/):



Vilbert:
There are no dice in Rock, Paper, Scissors.


Red Mage:
I'd like to direct your attention to the Air Bud Clause.


Red Mage:
There is no rule specifically stating that dice are not valid choices. So there.


Vilbert:
That's madness.


Red Mage:
That's Air Bud.

[Troacctid]

Actually, the Dysfunction Handbook already has that covered: Unconsciousness's only real mechanical effect is making you Helpless, which in turn treats your DEX as though it's 0, which in turn considers you as Paralyzed, so you can still make purely mental actions while dead.

Death also removes your Wisdom and Charisma scores, because, as a corpse, you are an object, not a creature.

[KillianHawkeye]

I knew that I should have ignored this thread when I first saw it, but I didn't. I am now dumber for having read any of this nonsense. :smallannoyed:

[ben-zayb]

Death also removes your Wisdom and Charisma scores, because, as a corpse, you are an object, not a creature.

If you are no longer a creature with the dead condition, then Raise Dead no longer works (arguably nonfunctional with Animate Dead, too, if we go into spell details instead of just the targeting clause)! :smalltongue:

Actually, does that mean there are no unfleeting existence of creatures with the Dead condition? Just corpses that are objects, and creatures that get the Dead condition in an brief instance, after which they turn into objects.


Also, is it just me who's reminded of the Dead Parrot sketch while reading this thread?

[Necroticplague]

I disagree, while saying that it applies to 9/10 steps does not explicitly say that it does not apply in the 10th step, several factors imply it. (you are correct about my terminology, thank you)

1, Nonlethal damage > current HP = unconscious and -1 to -9 = unconscious are two ways of saying the same rule, since it is impossible to have negative nonlethal, since it counts up, not down. Even if the latter example is a more specific application of the rule.

2. Since you are saying the same thing twice, there must be a reason.

3. Since it was explicitly spelled out at every other step, also being a redundant statement based on a general rule, and then not saying it at step 10, there is a reason it was left out.

Does this imply a new state, neither conscious, nor unconscious?
1. Not necessarily true. If you're immune to nonlethal damage, you entirely lack a nonlethal damage counter for the first to apply to, but the second can still apply.
2.Not necessarily. Redundancies in DnD rules frequently occur as a result of being written by dozens of different people, who don't seem to talk to each other nearly enough. You know the old saying about monkeys with typewriters producing shakespear? They were wrong. You actually get DnD rulebooks.
3.Since the rule about unconcious from -1 to -9 in never explicitly stated to be a subset of the nonlethal damage rules, and it is not required to be so for it to function, it is not.
No, it does not imply a new state. It implies a state that already exists, unconciousness.

[atemu1234]

One of the oldest dysfunctions in the game, really. Common sense rules in this situation.

[TheBrassDuke]

0 to -10 in nonlethal means nothing to 0 to -10 lethal...you know that, right?

p. 146 of the 3.5 PHB
http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu87/CainePorter/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsujjynhbd.png

[Immabozo]

Again, the fact that they are redundant does not change the fact that they are explicitly sperate causes of unconsciousness.

I'll certainly agree that it would be far more sensible for the -1 to -9 rule to be a special case of the the nonlethal rule. The text of the condition summary (linked in my last post), however, makes it greatly clear that they two rules are treated by the text as unrelated.

Incidently, I find this particularly irritating, add it implies that it never occurred to the authors and editors that any number between -1 and -9 will always be less than any number greater than or equal to 0.

So I guess it's a dysfunction that accidentally fixes a dysfunction?


1. Not necessarily true. If you're immune to nonlethal damage, you entirely lack a nonlethal damage counter for the first to apply to, but the second can still apply.
2.Not necessarily. Redundancies in DnD rules frequently occur as a result of being written by dozens of different people, who don't seem to talk to each other nearly enough. You know the old saying about monkeys with typewriters producing shakespear? They were wrong. You actually get DnD rulebooks.
3.Since the rule about unconcious from -1 to -9 in never explicitly stated to be a subset of the nonlethal damage rules, and it is not required to be so for it to function, it is not.
No, it does not imply a new state. It implies a state that already exists, unconciousness.

Please, explain to me how having no lethal damage counter is different than having 0 lethal damage? I guess, I can see that in being game mechanics, but math says "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!" Simly lacking something is about as good a definition of zero as you will ever find, hahahahahaha.

And I believe it is Great Expectations, not Shakespeare. t was the best of times, it was the worst of times

I think the answer to our problems is immunity to nonlethal damage. So gaining regeneration! Immune to nonlethal damage! No, wait, lol, that is the opposite of how regen works, lol.

So Immunity to non-lethal damage and IHS give you the ability to self ressurect! Or, more accurately, no longer be dead. But you are not undead.


0 to -10 in nonlethal means nothing to 0 to -10 lethal...you know that, right?

p. 146 of the 3.5 PHB
http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu87/CainePorter/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsujjynhbd.png

Well, seeing as negative nonlethal is impossible to attain, being that it counts up, not down like real hp, there are no rules governing negative nonlethal.

[TheBrassDuke]

If it doesn't exist, there's not much stock in trying to figure it out. Unless you're playing in the Far Realms, that is. All I'm saying.

[Immabozo]

If it doesn't exist, there's not much stock in trying to figure it out. Unless you're playing in the Far Realms, that is. All I'm saying.

What about far realms makes negative non-lethal possible?

[TheBrassDuke]

Absolutely nothing. But that's the point. Outrageous is as outrageous does. In the Far Realms.

[Zombimode]

Please, explain to me how having no lethal damage counter is different than having 0 lethal damage? I guess, I can see that in being game mechanics, but math says "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!" Simly lacking something is about as good a definition of zero as you will ever find, hahahahahaha.

Uhm... math actually provides the easiest answer to this:
{0} != {}

Also, "zero" is not defined as "lacking something". Its defined as the neutral element of the addition.

There are numerous examples in 3.5 illustrating the difference between "zero" and "-":

Ability scores: "-" != "0"
Divine rank: "-" != "0"
Spells per day: "-" != "0"


I knew that I should have ignored this thread when I first saw it, but I didn't. I am now dumber for having read any of this nonsense. :smallannoyed:

My thoughts exactly.

[Immabozo]

Uhm... math actually provides the easiest answer to this:
{0} != {}

Also, "zero" is not defined as "lacking something". Its defined as the neutral element of the addition.

There are numerous examples in 3.5 illustrating the difference between "zero" and "-":

Ability scores: "-" != "0"
Divine rank: "-" != "0"
Spells per day: "-" != "0"



My thoughts exactly.

You are correct, I concede that point

[Hecuba]

So I guess it's a dysfunction that accidentally fixes a dysfunction?

That's precisely the point I've been making. Its not that the unconsciousness and death rules are not broken, its that they happen to be broken in a way that (accidentally) covers the particular case you are arguing.

[Immabozo]

That's precisely the point I've been making. Its not that the unconsciousness and death rules are not broken, its that they happen to be broken in a way that (accidentally) covers the particular case you are arguing.

But immunity non-lethal damage fixes the fix until it is broke. so immunity to nonlethal damage + IHS makes self resurrection possible!

[Necroticplague]

But immunity non-lethal damage fixes the fix until it is broke. so immunity to nonlethal damage + IHS makes self resurrection possible!

Nope, re-read the definition of dead

. Dead characters cannot benefit from normal or magical healing, but they can be restored to life via magic. A dead body decays normally unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death (depending on the spell or device). Either way, resurrected characters need not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other conditions that affect dead bodies.

So, because of the second bolded portion, IHS, not being magic, can't bring you back to life.

[DarkSoul]

So just to summarize: When a creature is dead they aren't explicitly unconscious, nor are they explicitly prohibited from taking actions. Such a creature could therefore use Iron Heart Surge to remove the "dead" condition, because according to the rules being dead is an applied condition, and conceivably no longer be dead.

I would have a twofold response to said argumentative player:

1: Consider these three points, all of which are explicitly stated in the rules:



A creature with the "dead" condition has its hit points immediately set to -10.
When a creature's hit points reach -10, its Constitution score reaches 0, or it dies due to a death effect or from massive damage, it gains the "dead" condition.
Iron Heart Surge does not heal damage, nor does it work on anything without a stated duration of 1 or more rounds.


The "dead" condition has no listed duration at all, much less one measured in rounds, hours, days, or even permanent, so Iron Heart Surge can't remove it, nor can it remove the unconscious condition assuming a way could be found to take actions while unconscious. So assuming IHS can be used while dead it heals no damage, the creature's hit points remain at -10, and it immediately regains the "dead" condition. Congratulations, IHS made the creature "not dead" for such a miniscule amount of time that no one cared. Should the player continue to argue this point, I would immediately direct them to the second part of my response:

2: https://youtu.be/D4Ha_XjCuA8 (caution, not suitable for the snark-sensitive)

Being dead is being less conscious than being unconscious, or even comatose. Dead is dead, of course you can't take actions.

[Hecuba]

But immunity non-lethal damage fixes the fix until it is broke. so immunity to nonlethal damage + IHS makes self resurrection possible!

Correct, for a given reading of IHS (which is unforgivably vague itself).

You can also take any action you could take when unconscious/paralyzed/helpless. Those are thankfully sparse in 1st party materials, but there are a small number of otherwise reasonable 3rd-party abilities (and a couple in the nebulous licensed category) that allow some action while unconscious that would thus be allowed while dead under that strict of a RAW reading.

[Immabozo]

Nope, re-read the definition of dead

So, because of the second bolded portion, IHS, not being magic, can't bring you back to life.

Please forgive me, I am having 2 conversations on this topic and I have the two mixed slightly in my head. I do believe maneuvers are introduced to be magic like, giving magic like abilities to melee. Or something like that, is that correct?

If so, an argument could be made to allow IHS to have this capability.


I would have a twofold response to said argumentative player:

1: Consider these three points, all of which are explicitly stated in the rules:



A creature with the "dead" condition has its hit points immediately set to -10.
When a creature's hit points reach -10, its Constitution score reaches 0, or it dies due to a death effect or from massive damage, it gains the "dead" condition.
Iron Heart Surge does not heal damage, nor does it work on anything without a stated duration of 1 or more rounds.


The "dead" condition has no listed duration at all, much less one measured in rounds, hours, days, or even permanent, so Iron Heart Surge can't remove it, nor can it remove the unconscious condition assuming a way could be found to take actions while unconscious. So assuming IHS can be used while dead it heals no damage, the creature's hit points remain at -10, and it immediately regains the "dead" condition. Congratulations, IHS made the creature "not dead" for such a miniscule amount of time that no one cared. Should the player continue to argue this point, I would immediately direct them to the second part of my response:

2: https://youtu.be/D4Ha_XjCuA8 (caution, not suitable for the snark-sensitive)

Being dead is being less conscious than being unconscious, or even comatose. Dead is dead, of course you can't take actions.

First, I love your link. 2, you are making a terrible mistake that will give you difficulty on these boards. You are mixing up RAW arguments and builds, with something that will see play. You are countering RAW arguments with how, as a DM, you would handle the situation.

Also, the thing about how you are not raised above -10 hp, an argument can be made that your character is healed to, at least, -9, because -10 does not remove the condition. Although, granted, it is a weak argument, and it is more likely that you stay at -10 and just die again. That is not the point of doing it. The point of doing it would be because you can. This build would NEVER see play at a table.

So, why cant you take actions when you are dead? What rules are you basing that decision on? If immune to non-lethal damage, you would be concious and able to move and take actions.

[Troacctid]

Please forgive me, I am having 2 conversations on this topic and I have the two mixed slightly in my head. I do believe maneuvers are introduced to be magic like, giving magic like abilities to melee. Or something like that, is that correct?

Incorrect. Iron Heart Surge, like most maneuvers, is an extraordinary ability.

[Immabozo]

Incorrect. Iron Heart Surge, like most maneuvers, is an extraordinary ability.

So is a wizard's ability to cast spells. What is your point? I believe the Tomb of battle describes maneuvers like that, but I am AFB

[Troacctid]

So is a wizard's ability to cast spells.

No it's not. What gave you that idea?

Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical (DMG 289), and maneuvers are extraordinary unless otherwise stated (TB 40). It's pretty clear-cut. Iron Heart Surge is a nonmagical, extraordinary ability.

[Necroticplague]

So is a wizard's ability to cast spells. What is your point? I believe the Tomb of battle describes maneuvers like that, but I am AFB Actually, a Wizards ability to prepare and cast spells is a natural ability. However, the spell itself is magical. Thus, even in an AMF, you can prepare your spells (and try to cast them, and fail). This, however, is entirely unrelated to what you were responding to, which is whether IHS is magic.


Please forgive me, I am having 2 conversations on this topic and I have the two mixed slightly in my head. I do believe maneuvers are introduced to be magic like, giving magic like abilities to melee. Or something like that, is that correct?

If so, an argument could be made to allow IHS to have this capability.

No, you're flat-out wrong. The only time magic is ever referenced is the name of the chapter being called "blade magic". However, the very first two lines of that chapter has this to say:

The uncanny power of the Sublime Way springs from a blend of physical skill, mental self-discipline, and adherence to distinct martial philosophies. Many of the maneuvers of the various martial disciplines aren't magic at all-they are simply demonstration of near-superhuman skill and training.
More relevantly, the way maneuvers work contradicts you. Unless explicitly marked as Supernatural, all maneuvers are Extraordinary . IHS lacks the SU tag, so it's an entirely nonmagical effect. It's simply an extraordinary amount of resolve and will that lets you shrug off a condition and come back with a vengeance.

[Immabozo]

stuff and things

I stand corrected.

[Segev]

But immunity non-lethal damage fixes the fix until it is broke. so immunity to nonlethal damage + IHS makes self resurrection possible!

Immunity means you can't gain more of it. For example, if you were hit by acid arrow for 5 points of damage on the first round, and you got acid immunity from your party wizard before the second round's damage came up, you don't suddenly have 5 more hp; the acid damage was done. It isn't "removed" or any such thing.

Similarly, all things have, by default, 0 nonlethal damage. There isn't an empty set mechanic, here. The cases where "-" and "0" are two different things do not apply; the rules never state that you have "-" nonlethal damage.

Therefore, even if you're immune to nonlethal damage, you still have 0 hp of it. Thus, while you're unable to take more nonlethal damage, you also still fall unconscious if your total hp falls below your nonlethal damage value.

[Malimar]

Immunity to nonlethal damage probably doesn't work for the reasons Segev gave, but I think the Diehard feat does. Diehard is a case of specific trumping general, and does override the nonlethal>HP=unconscious rule.

[Segev]

Immunity to nonlethal damage probably doesn't work for the reasons Segev gave, but I think the Diehard feat does. Diehard is a case of specific trumping general, and does override the nonlethal>HP=unconscious rule.

Diehard explicitly works from -1 to -9 hp, and does indeed trump general. However, since it doesn't do anything when you're at -10 hp, and, as has been shown previously, anybody who is dead is set to -10 hp, it won't help you overcome death.

[Immabozo]

Die hard is VERY close to working, but for the line


you may choose to act as if you were disabled, rather than dying

Emphasis mine. So to do something, rather than dying, you have to be subject to the dying condition. Since dying is -1 through -9, alas, it does not work. No matter how much I want to read it to work.


Immunity means you can't gain more of it. For example, if you were hit by acid arrow for 5 points of damage on the first round, and you got acid immunity from your party wizard before the second round's damage came up, you don't suddenly have 5 more hp; the acid damage was done. It isn't "removed" or any such thing.

Similarly, all things have, by default, 0 nonlethal damage. There isn't an empty set mechanic, here. The cases where "-" and "0" are two different things do not apply; the rules never state that you have "-" nonlethal damage.

Therefore, even if you're immune to nonlethal damage, you still have 0 hp of it. Thus, while you're unable to take more nonlethal damage, you also still fall unconscious if your total hp falls below your nonlethal damage value.

No, no and no. If you gain an undead template, say lich, after character creation, do you suddenly have 0 con, since you had a con score before? No, your con becomes "-". Sure, if you sustain 5 nonlethal damage, then gain immunity, it is not suddenly healed, but it will be healed eventually, and then you can gain no more. Then, the trick works, since as has been pointed out, you simply lack a non-lethal damage counter, which does not = 0.

[Segev]

No, no and no. If you gain an undead template, say lich, after character creation, do you suddenly have 0 con, since you had a con score before? No, your con becomes "-". Sure, if you sustain 5 nonlethal damage, then gain immunity, it is not suddenly healed, but it will be healed eventually, and then you can gain no more. Then, the trick works, since as has been pointed out, you simply lack a non-lethal damage counter, which does not = 0.

Seeing as the undead type and every template which grants it says you set your Con to "-", I don't see where your argument holds any water.

If you have not taken any nonlethal damage, you have 0 nonlethal damage. Every instance where you have "-" or the empty set for a value, it either is something that you have to be explicitly granted by a class or other feature (such as a power point pool), or the rules call out specifically that you have not zero but null in some language. As with non-abilities, like the constitution of an undead creature.

[Immabozo]

Seeing as the undead type and every template which grants it says you set your Con to "-", I don't see where your argument holds any water.

If you have not taken any nonlethal damage, you have 0 nonlethal damage. Every instance where you have "-" or the empty set for a value, it either is something that you have to be explicitly granted by a class or other feature (such as a power point pool), or the rules call out specifically that you have not zero but null in some language. As with non-abilities, like the constitution of an undead creature.

Based on what rule? If you are a plant, or a construct, or I think undead, you've always been immune to non-lethal, so it wouldn't make sense to have a 0 nonlethal. There is no rule, that I know of, you are basing your position on.

[KillianHawkeye]

Yeah, no. If your nonlethal damage counter was ever "--", it wouldn't be a valid starting point for adding numbers to. That's the point of stuff like Con -- or Int --, that you can't add or subtract from them. That's why your base nonlethal is zero; it's only there to be added to and subtracted from, so it MUST have a numeric value.

[Immabozo]

Yeah, no. If your nonlethal damage counter was ever "--", it wouldn't be a valid starting point for adding numbers to. That's the point of stuff like Con -- or Int --, that you can't add or subtract from them. That's why your base nonlethal is zero; it's only there to be added to and subtracted from, so it MUST have a numeric value.

but if you are immune, there is nothing to add and subtract

[Segev]

but if you are immune, there is nothing to add and subtract

But you would still need a rule making you an exception to having 0 nonlethal by default. Immunity to nonlethal contains no such clause.

Really, though, what's the point of trying to make the case that nonlethal can have a value of "-"? Nothing in the rules says it does, nothing in the rules works better if it does, and the only position in any discussion that it helps is one that everybody agrees is asininely stupid (that you can somehow act while dead).

I'm not normally one to lean towards end results justifying looking at a rule in a particular way, but when it requires looking at a rule sideways and squinting funny while chanting the names of the line developers from 3e back to Basic backwards, but you can maybe still do it...and the only end result is to break something that everybody would house-rule your "broken discovery" away anyway...why try to force that interpretation?

[ThisIsZen]

but if you are immune, there is nothing to add and subtract

If you introduce a feature, ability or rule that can strip immunity to nonlethal damage, however, the idea that immunity == no nonlethal damage track is an annoying obstacle. You now need to use annoyingly specific language and an extra sentence to actually remove nonlethal immunity - "The creature gains a nonlethal damage value of 0" or something.

However, if you assume that immunity to nonlethal damage means that you can't GAIN any nonlethal, but still have a value of 0 (that is, you're refusing all inputs but the receptor still exists), you don't end up with annoying corner cases, and you don't have to explain things like a creature gaining nonlethal immunity while having nonlethal damage suddenly losing the entire nonlethal damage track at the moment it heals its last point of nonlethal, which I think is silly at best.

[Immabozo]

If you introduce a feature, ability or rule that can strip immunity to nonlethal damage, however, the idea that immunity == no nonlethal damage track is an annoying obstacle. You now need to use annoyingly specific language and an extra sentence to actually remove nonlethal immunity - "The creature gains a nonlethal damage value of 0" or something.

However, if you assume that immunity to nonlethal damage means that you can't GAIN any nonlethal, but still have a value of 0 (that is, you're refusing all inputs but the receptor still exists), you don't end up with annoying corner cases, and you don't have to explain things like a creature gaining nonlethal immunity while having nonlethal damage suddenly losing the entire nonlethal damage track at the moment it heals its last point of nonlethal, which I think is silly at best.

This is the best argument on non-lethal from a rules perspective, not a "I am a logical DM making things work for my game" perspective. Thank you and I concede that you are correct

[DarkSoul]

First, I love your link. 2, you are making a terrible mistake that will give you difficulty on these boards. You are mixing up RAW arguments and builds, with something that will see play. You are countering RAW arguments with how, as a DM, you would handle the situation.

Also, the thing about how you are not raised above -10 hp, an argument can be made that your character is healed to, at least, -9, because -10 does not remove the condition. Although, granted, it is a weak argument, and it is more likely that you stay at -10 and just die again. That is not the point of doing it. The point of doing it would be because you can. This build would NEVER see play at a table.

So, why cant you take actions when you are dead? What rules are you basing that decision on? If immune to non-lethal damage, you would be concious and able to move and take actions.I disagree with you that a character able to do this would never see play. I can't remember ever seeing an initiator build that CAN take IHS, but doesn't. The argument that IHS would bring you to -9 is weak, you're right, because IHS doesn't heal damage.

Also, the three points that I made against allowing IHS to remove the dead condition are completely RAW. I don't see how that can be construed as mixing RAW with my interpretation of them as a DM.

Finally, why can't you take actions because you're dead? Because you're dead. Why should it have to be spelled out in the rules that being dead means you can't take actions? Most people playing this game have a firm grasp on what can and can't be done while you're dead long before they ever crack open a PHB, so why waste the page space?

[Necroticplague]

Finally, why can't you take actions because you're dead? Because you're dead. Why should it have to be spelled out in the rules that being dead means you can't take actions? Most people playing this game have a firm grasp on what can and can't be done while you're dead long before they ever crack open a PHB, so why waste the page space?

Except the same "apply real life logic" breaks down if you try that, because IRL, we use "dead" to mean "no longer alive", a meaning which clearly doesn't work in DnD (due to the fact that 'dead' and 'not alive' are different categories, thanks to Constructs, and Undead).

[DarkSoul]

Except the same "apply real life logic" breaks down if you try that, because IRL, we use "dead" to mean "no longer alive", a meaning which clearly doesn't work in DnD (due to the fact that 'dead' and 'not alive' are different categories, thanks to Constructs, and Undead).In D&D, being dead specifically applies to creatures who have had their hit points reduced to -10 or lower through damage (undead and constructs never get below 0), their Constitution lowered to 0 (no Con score at all), or some sort of instant kill effect (usually save or die, which they're likely immune to). So if the things in game that go against our real-world definition of "dead" can't become dead at all, why doesn't the real-world definition work in-game?

Especially in light of the fact that "dead" means "no longer alive", but also means "nonfunctional" (among other things).

[Immabozo]

I disagree with you that a character able to do this would never see play. I can't remember ever seeing an initiator build that CAN take IHS, but doesn't. The argument that IHS would bring you to -9 is weak, you're right, because IHS doesn't heal damage.

Also, the three points that I made against allowing IHS to remove the dead condition are completely RAW. I don't see how that can be construed as mixing RAW with my interpretation of them as a DM.

Finally, why can't you take actions because you're dead? Because you're dead. Why should it have to be spelled out in the rules that being dead means you can't take actions? Most people playing this game have a firm grasp on what can and can't be done while you're dead long before they ever crack open a PHB, so why waste the page space?

I am sorry, but you seem unable to separate RAW from RAI. There is nothing in RAW preventing taking actions or moving while dead, as a direct result of being dead. If you fall under unconscious rules, you cant act due to being unconcious. The game defines dead in game terms and does not prevent the above as part of being dead. Just like RAW says that elephants can jump better than housecats and Giants can just on top of a waist high ledge without rolling, but that is far higher than they can possibly jump by jump check.

[Immabozo]

Dead

The character’s hit points are reduced to -10, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The character’s soul leaves his body. Dead characters cannot benefit from normal or magical healing, but they can be restored to life via magic. A dead body decays normally unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death (depending on the spell or device). Either way, resurrected characters need not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other conditions that affect dead bodies.

In the game, that is the definition of dead. It is the alpha and the omega of what happens as a result of death in the game, per the rules of the game.

[Necroticplague]

In D&D, being dead specifically applies to creatures who have had their hit points reduced to -10 or lower through damage (undead and constructs never get below 0), their Constitution lowered to 0 (no Con score at all), or some sort of instant kill effect (usually save or die, which they're likely immune to). So if the things in game that go against our real-world definition of "dead" can't become dead at all, why doesn't the real-world definition work in-game?

The reason the real-life definition doesn't work is because it's possible for alive creatures to become not-alive without ever becoming dead. Say, a bugbear uses either a Ritual of Vitality to become a wight. It would go from having a con score to not, thus making the transition from living to not. However, at no point is it dead.

[Immabozo]

The reason the real-life definition doesn't work is because it's possible for alive creatures to become not-alive without ever becoming dead. Say, a bugbear uses either a Ritual of Vitality to become a wight. It would go from having a con score to not, thus making the transition from living to not. However, at no point is it dead.

While is seems like that is a good reasoning, the real answer of why it does not, is that, for the purposes of the game, the definition has been re-written. It is as simple as that.

[DarkSoul]

I am sorry, but you seem unable to separate RAW from RAI. There is nothing in RAW preventing taking actions or moving while dead, as a direct result of being dead. If you fall under unconscious rules, you cant act due to being unconcious. The game defines dead in game terms and does not prevent the above as part of being dead. Just like RAW says that elephants can jump better than housecats and Giants can just on top of a waist high ledge without rolling, but that is far higher than they can possibly jump by jump check.I am completely able to separate rules as written from rules as intended. Because "you're dead" doesn't seem to be a good enough reason to say a dead creature can't take actions, then tell me this: where in the rules does it explicitly state that a creature can control its body if its soul is on another plane? The RAW for being dead states that this is exactly the situation when something dies. If a creature can control its body while its soul is in the afterlife, then a creature can take actions while dead. It will also make funerals a lot more interesting.

[Immabozo]

I am completely able to separate rules as written from rules as intended. Because "you're dead" doesn't seem to be a good enough reason to say a dead creature can't take actions, then tell me this: where in the rules does it explicitly state that a creature can control its body if its soul is on another plane? The RAW for being dead states that this is exactly the situation when something dies. If a creature can control its body while its soul is in the afterlife, then a creature can take actions while dead. It will also make funerals a lot more interesting.

What rules are you citing that a soul is needed to act? Quite the contrary, there is a spell in BoED that removes a soul from a body, and it does it without killing the body.

[DarkSoul]

What rules are you citing that a soul is needed to act? Quite the contrary, there is a spell in BoED that removes a soul from a body, and it does it without killing the body.What spell is this? I assumed it was Sanctify the Wicked, but that destroys the body. Show me a rule, or even an in-game precedent, that says a soul can act with its body when separated from it, otherwise being dead prevents it from taking actions.

[Necroticplague]

What spell is this? I assumed it was Sanctify the Wicked, but that destroys the body. Show me a rule, or even an in-game precedent, that says a soul can act with its body when separated from it, otherwise being dead prevents it from taking actions.

Mindless undead explicitly have no soul (as per Magic Jar), and are yet capable of acting.

Even if there are no explicit examples, the point still stands: where does it say you need a soul to move your body? We seem to get by in real life fine without them.

[DarkSoul]

Mindless undead explicitly have no soul (as per Magic Jar), and are yet capable of acting.Mindless undead have an animating force allowing them to take actions, and they aren't dead, either.


Even if there are no explicit examples, the point still stands: where does it say you need a soul to move your body?Magic Jar and Astral Projection both spring to mind as examples that you do. YOU cannot take actions with YOUR body while under the effect of either of those spells. YOU cannot take actions with YOUR body in-game if your soul does not currently occupy it.

[Necroticplague]

Magic Jar and Astral Projection both spring to mind as examples that you do. YOU cannot take actions with YOUR body while under the effect of either of those spells. YOU cannot take actions with YOUR body in-game if your soul does not currently occupy it.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". It's entirely possible this a side-result of the spells themselves, and has nothing to do with souls. Heck, I can actually think of a better counter-example: Lichs. They move around perfectly fine with their soul crammed in a box that they don't need to keep on their person.

[DarkSoul]

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". It's entirely possible this a side-result of the spells themselves, and has nothing to do with souls. Heck, I can actually think of a better counter-example: Lichs. They move around perfectly fine with their soul crammed in a box that they don't need to keep on their person.Like mindless undead, a lich isn't dead. If it were, then by raw it would immediately crumble away, destroyed, due to being at lower than 1 hit point.

[Immabozo]

What spell is this? I assumed it was Sanctify the Wicked, but that destroys the body. Show me a rule, or even an in-game precedent, that says a soul can act with its body when separated from it, otherwise being dead prevents it from taking actions.

I actual don't know which spell, I just know of it.


Mindless undead have an animating force allowing them to take actions, and they aren't dead, either.

Magic Jar and Astral Projection both spring to mind as examples that you do. YOU cannot take actions with YOUR body while under the effect of either of those spells. YOU cannot take actions with YOUR body in-game if your soul does not currently occupy it.

Regardless of the relation and who owns what of your language, there are no rules saying that a soul is required for bodily action.

Certainly if you have magic, or magic items that specify that is how that goes, it does. why? Because MAGIC! Does that mean that is how that works in general? Well, the same way that a wizard cast a finger of death on something and that means that whatever he points at must make a save or die. Well, I guess thats ok, cause in D&D, death doesn't stop them from living.

[DarkSoul]

I actual don't know which spell, I just know of it.Well you'd better produce some RAW, since that's what this discussion is all about. I looked through my BoED, and didn't see any spell dealing with the removal of something's soul that didn't also destroy the body said soul came from.


Regardless of the relation and who owns what of your language, there are no rules saying that a soul is required for bodily action.There are also no rules saying that a creature can take actions with its body when it's soul isn't resident. In fact, the Magic Jar spell specifically says your body is lifeless when your soul leaves it, which is a specific in-game precedent reinforcing the idea that no, you cannot act with your body if your soul does not reside in it.


Certainly if you have magic, or magic items that specify that is how that goes, it does. why? Because MAGIC! Does that mean that is how that works in general? Well, the same way that a wizard cast a finger of death on something and that means that whatever he points at must make a save or die. Well, I guess thats ok, cause in D&D, death doesn't stop them from living.It does stop them from acting, however, because their soul has left their body. Also, how it works "in general" is that when you're dead you can't act. "In general" != RAW. Now then, about that RAW you were going to show me saying someone can take actions with their body while their soul is on another plane of existence?

[Necroticplague]

Well you'd better produce some RAW, since that's what this discussion is all about.
Easy: The rules for taking actions in general make absolutely no mention of your soul being in your body or not. So, barring anything specifically restricting your actions, you can take actions. Since lacking a soul isn't brought up as being a condition for losing your actions, you keep being able to make actions with your body when soulless.


Like mindless undead, a lich isn't dead. If it were, then by raw it would immediately crumble away, destroyed, due to being at lower than 1 hit point.
Can you please not move the goalposts like that? You simply asked for an example of a creature acting with it's body while it's soul was separated from it's body. You did not ask for an example of a dead creature without it's soul taking actions (which would be ridiculous, because that's what we're arguing about the possibility of).

Show me a rule, or even an in-game precedent, that says a soul can act with its body when separated from it, otherwise being dead prevents it from taking actions.
And I have produced an example: A lich can act with it's body when it's soul is safe in it's phylactery.

[Immabozo]

Well you'd better produce some RAW, since that's what this discussion is all about. I looked through my BoED, and didn't see any spell dealing with the removal of something's soul that didn't also destroy the body said soul came from.


Action Types
An action’s type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated. There are six types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, free actions, swift actions, and immediate actions.

In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one or more free actions. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action.

In some situations (such as in a surprise round), you may be limited to taking only a single move action or standard action.

No mention of the need to be alive to take actions.


Initiative

Initiative Checks
At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check. An initiative check is a Dexterity check. Each character applies his or her Dexterity modifier to the roll. Characters act in order, counting down from highest result to lowest. In every round that follows, the characters act in the same order (unless a character takes an action that results in his or her initiative changing; see Special Initiative Actions).

If two or more combatants have the same initiative check result, the combatants who are tied act in order of total initiative modifier (highest first). If there is still a tie, the tied characters should roll again to determine which one of them goes before the other.

No mention of the need to be alive to roll initiative.


Spot (Wis)
Check
The Spot skill is used primarily to detect characters or creatures who are hiding. Typically, your Spot check is opposed by the Hide check of the creature trying not to be seen. Sometimes a creature isn’t intentionally hiding but is still difficult to see, so a successful Spot check is necessary to notice it.

A Spot check result higher than 20 generally lets you become aware of an invisible creature near you, though you can’t actually see it.

Spot is also used to detect someone in disguise, and to read lips when you can’t hear or understand what someone is saying.

Spot checks may be called for to determine the distance at which an encounter begins. A penalty applies on such checks, depending on the distance between the two individuals or groups, and an additional penalty may apply if the character making the Spot check is distracted (not concentrating on being observant).

No mention of the need to be alive to roll spot checks.


Dead

The character’s hit points are reduced to -10, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The character’s soul leaves his body. Dead characters cannot benefit from normal or magical healing, but they can be restored to life via magic. A dead body decays normally unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death (depending on the spell or device). Either way, resurrected characters need not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other conditions that affect dead bodies.

No mention of anything stopping a character from taking actions, making skill checks, or rolling initiative.

In fact, the only thing that death stops you from, is 1, you are no longer dying, and 2, you no longer have a soul.


There are also no rules saying that a creature can take actions with its body when it's soul isn't resident. In fact, the Magic Jar spell specifically says your body is lifeless when your soul leaves it, which is a specific in-game precedent reinforcing the idea that no, you cannot act with your body if your soul does not reside in it.

Magic Jar does that because MAGIC! See my wizard killing people he points at because he CAN cast finger of death, but hey, there is a president! That is not a rule, nor is it a "president" which 1, doesn't work in D&D like it does in the legal system, and two, may be grounds for establishing a DM's call, but not for game rules. It is either a rule, or it isn't.


It does stop them from acting, however, because their soul has left their body. Also, how it works "in general" is that when you're dead you can't act. "In general" != RAW. Now then, about that RAW you were going to show me saying someone can take actions with their body while their soul is on another plane of existence?

What about death stops you from acting? Please, show me a single game rule.

[DarkSoul]

Easy: The rules for taking actions in general make absolutely no mention of your soul being in your body or not. So, barring anything specifically restricting your actions, you can take actions. Since lacking a soul isn't brought up as being a condition for losing your actions, you keep being able to make actions with your body when soulless.I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to Bozo regarding the spell that he knows is in the BoED that removes someone's soul from their body and leaves the body intact. Also, the rules for taking action in general make absolutely no mention of being able to act when your soul is not in your body. So, barring anything specifically allowing you to do so, you cannot take actions if you are in that situation, namely dead. Also, effects that specifically remove your soul from your body, in this case magic jar, makes no mention of you being able to take actions with your body while your soul is outside if it. In fact, it explicitly states your body is lifeless. But I suppose lifeless isn't something that prevents actions either according to RAW, so we seem to be at an impasse and have to fall back on RAI or DM fiat then, don't we?

The notion of a creature being able to take actions with its body when soulless is absurd because if that were the case then every corpse in the multiverse, animated or not, would be taking actions based on the whims of the soul that originally inhabited it.


Can you please not move the goalposts like that? You simply asked for an example of a creature acting with it's body while it's soul was separated from it's body. You did not ask for an example of a dead creature without it's soul taking actions (which would be ridiculous, because that's what we're arguing about the possibility of).

And I have produced an example: A lich can act with it's body when it's soul is safe in it's phylactery.I didn't move the goalposts, you aimed for the wrong ones. The subject of this thread is whether or not you can take actions when you're dead. Undead are not dead, because being dead puts you at -10 hp by RAW, and undead are destroyed at any hp total less than one, also by RAW. Leave undead out of it, they're irrelevant to the discussion.

Furthermore, I didn't have to ask for an example of a dead creature without its soul taking actions; the OP already did it. A dead creature has no soul the instant it becomes dead according to RAW, but a soulless dead body taking actions is exactly what the OP contends is possible.

And yes, this entire argument is utterly ridiculous, but when someone wants to put forth an absurd argument they believe is backed up by the rules as written they need to be able to defend their argument in the face of what's explicitly written, and only what's explicitly written. Nothing is said about whether your soul has to be in your body to take actions with it, thus both sides of the argument are correct according to RAW.

[DarkSoul]

What about death stops you from acting? Please, show me a single game rule.The fact that your soul is not in your body, and there is nothing in RAW that says you can take actions with your body while your soul is not in it due to being dead. The burden of proof is on you. Prove you can, or let this discussion fall back to the realm of dysfunction and RAI where it belongs.

[Immabozo]

I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to Bozo regarding the spell that he knows is in the BoED that removes someone's soul from their body and leaves the body intact. Also, the rules for taking action in general make absolutely no mention of being able to act when your soul is not in your body. So, barring anything specifically allowing you to do so, you cannot take actions if you are in that situation, namely dead. Also, effects that specifically remove your soul from your body, in this case magic jar, makes no mention of you being able to take actions with your body while your soul is outside if it. In fact, it explicitly states your body is lifeless. But I suppose lifeless isn't something that prevents actions either according to RAW, so we seem to be at an impasse and have to fall back on RAI or DM fiat then, don't we?

The notion of a creature being able to take actions with its body when soulless is absurd because if that were the case then every corpse in the multiverse, animated or not, would be taking actions based on the whims of the soul that originally inhabited it.

Again, you seem incapable of separating RAW and RAI. Of course it doesn't have everyone who ever died being ambulatory. This is a discussion of how the rules fell down and a loophole was created. Who's to say that is not how some mindless undead were created?

But no, being soulless prevents exactly nothing. If there is a player to control the character, according to my previously quoted rules, they can take actions.

Can you produce a rule that says you can walk in high heels, sneakers, bare foot, or in paper shoes? There is no rule that says you CAN, so if paper shoes are your thing, you cannot walk. Or let me reverse that. There is no rule in D&D that says you CAN walk around without wearing 6 inch stiletto high heel. Can you produce rules saying you can?


Furthermore, I didn't have to ask for an example of a dead creature without its soul taking actions; the OP already did it. A dead creature has no soul the instant it becomes dead according to RAW, but a soulless dead body taking actions is exactly what the OP contends is possible.

What makes a soul necessary for taking actions? In game terms, what does a soul do? As I stated above, no where in the rules do you either need to be alive, or have a soul to take actions. I have never found a definition of what a soul DOES in D&D. If a barbarian is disarmed in combat, is he no longer allowed to fight?

[QUOTE=DarkSoul;20516594]And yes, this entire argument is utterly ridiculous, but when someone wants to put forth an absurd argument they believe is backed up by the rules as written they need to be able to defend their argument in the face of what's explicitly written, and only what's explicitly written. Nothing is said about whether your soul has to be in your body to take actions with it, thus both sides of the argument are correct according to RAW.

Yes, it is absurd, that is the point. If the loophole for rules wasn't interesting, it wouldn't be fun. For example, I have never once heard of a rule which mentions the need for your character to poop. Nor do D&D characters fart. Or grow pimples. Or grow hair, nails, or have, or go through puberty, or have ... unintentional ... problems with arousal.

[Immabozo]

The fact that your soul is not in your body, and there is nothing in RAW that says you can take actions with your body while your soul is not in it due to being dead. The burden of proof is on you. Prove you can, or let this discussion fall back to the realm of dysfunction and RAI where it belongs.


Action Types
An action’s type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated. There are six types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, free actions, swift actions, and immediate actions.

In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one or more free actions. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action.

In some situations (such as in a surprise round), you may be limited to taking only a single move action or standard action.

No mention of the need to be alive to take actions. No mention of death stopping you, no mention of needing a soul to do it. You just, can.


Initiative

Initiative Checks
At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check. An initiative check is a Dexterity check. Each character applies his or her Dexterity modifier to the roll. Characters act in order, counting down from highest result to lowest. In every round that follows, the characters act in the same order (unless a character takes an action that results in his or her initiative changing; see Special Initiative Actions).

If two or more combatants have the same initiative check result, the combatants who are tied act in order of total initiative modifier (highest first). If there is still a tie, the tied characters should roll again to determine which one of them goes before the other.

No mention of the need to be alive to roll initiative. No mention of death stopping you, no mention of needing a soul to do it. You just, can.


Spot (Wis)
Check
The Spot skill is used primarily to detect characters or creatures who are hiding. Typically, your Spot check is opposed by the Hide check of the creature trying not to be seen. Sometimes a creature isn’t intentionally hiding but is still difficult to see, so a successful Spot check is necessary to notice it.

A Spot check result higher than 20 generally lets you become aware of an invisible creature near you, though you can’t actually see it.

Spot is also used to detect someone in disguise, and to read lips when you can’t hear or understand what someone is saying.

Spot checks may be called for to determine the distance at which an encounter begins. A penalty applies on such checks, depending on the distance between the two individuals or groups, and an additional penalty may apply if the character making the Spot check is distracted (not concentrating on being observant).

No mention of the need to be alive to use spot. No mention of death stopping you, no mention of needing a soul to do it. You just, can.


Dead

The character’s hit points are reduced to -10, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The character’s soul leaves his body. Dead characters cannot benefit from normal or magical healing, but they can be restored to life via magic. A dead body decays normally unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death (depending on the spell or device). Either way, resurrected characters need not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other conditions that affect dead bodies.

No mention of anything stopping a character from taking actions, making skill checks, or rolling initiative.

In fact, the only thing that death stops you from, is 1, you are no longer dying, and 2, you no longer have a soul.

There are no rules for what a soul does, so lacking it does.... what exactly? There are no rules for my character's relationship to his wadalama-da-ding-dong. Does he die in a lifeless heap if you take it away? Why? Because nothing says he doesn't? What says you nont float off into space? There is no mention of gravity in the rules.

[Troacctid]

I don't know about souls. The rules for souls are very vague. It's not clear how you get them and what exactly they do.

It is pretty clear, though, that you can't act unless you're conscious. Dead creatures aren't conscious.

[Necroticplague]

Also, the rules for taking action in general make absolutely no mention of being able to act when your soul is not in your body. So, barring anything specifically allowing you to do so, you cannot take actions if you are in that situation, namely dead. That's not how that works. In general, you can take actions. This remains true unless something specifies you can no longer take actions. The burden is on you to provide a source for "you can't act without a soul". Otherwise, the general rule of being able to act applies.

Heck, we could just as easily turn this into "Where does it say you can act if you have a soul?" and the only answer would be the same as my above (because the general rule applies).


Also, effects that specifically remove your soul from your body, in this case magic jar, makes no mention of you being able to take actions with your body while your soul is outside if it. In fact, it explicitly states your body is lifeless. But I suppose lifeless isn't something that prevents actions either according to RAW, so we seem to be at an impasse and have to fall back on RAI or DM fiat then, don't we? Well, undead and construct are, again, something that's lifeless but still moves, so it's not that unreasonable. Again, we manage to move just fine without having souls in real life, why do you assume people in DnD need them more than we do? A body still has a brain to think with, muscles to move with, why couldn't it act without a soul?


The notion of a creature being able to take actions with its body when soulless is absurd because if that were the case then every corpse in the multiverse, animated or not, would be taking actions based on the whims of the soul that originally inhabited it.
Except for, y'know, that whole Nonlethal issue that got brought up earlier (since anyone at -10 has nonlethal >current HP, and is thus unconcious), which prevent the vast majority of creatures from doing so.

[DarkSoul]

Again, you seem incapable of separating RAW and RAI. Of course it doesn't have everyone who ever died being ambulatory. This is a discussion of how the rules fell down and a loophole was created. Who's to say that is not how some mindless undead were created?

But no, being soulless prevents exactly nothing. If there is a player to control the character, according to my previously quoted rules, they can take actions.

Can you produce a rule that says you can walk in high heels, sneakers, bare foot, or in paper shoes? There is no rule that says you CAN, so if paper shoes are your thing, you cannot walk. Or let me reverse that. There is no rule in D&D that says you CAN walk around without wearing 6 inch stiletto high heel. Can you produce rules saying you can?

What makes a soul necessary for taking actions? In game terms, what does a soul do? As I stated above, no where in the rules do you either need to be alive, or have a soul to take actions. I have never found a definition of what a soul DOES in D&D. If a barbarian is disarmed in combat, is he no longer allowed to fight?

Yes, it is absurd, that is the point. If the loophole for rules wasn't interesting, it wouldn't be fun. For example, I have never once heard of a rule which mentions the need for your character to poop. Nor do D&D characters fart. Or grow pimples. Or grow hair, nails, or have, or go through puberty, or have ... unintentional ... problems with arousal.Marvelous use of ad hominem with a lovely segue into ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusions or missing the point.

Can you or can you not, prove through the rules as written that a dead creature's departed soul, currently residing on an outer plane, can take actions with its former body? When you do, let me know. Until then, enjoy your "fun".

[DarkSoul]

I don't know about souls. The rules for souls are very vague. It's not clear how you get them and what exactly they do.

It is pretty clear, though, that you can't act unless you're conscious. Dead creatures aren't conscious.That's the problem with this entire discussion. You're only unconscious at -1 through -9 hp. It techically doesn't say you remain unconscious and unable to act at -10 or dead, which is the entire premise of the OP's argument.

[Immabozo]

I don't know about souls. The rules for souls are very vague. It's not clear how you get them and what exactly they do.

It is pretty clear, though, that you can't act unless you're conscious. Dead creatures aren't conscious.

Being unconscious is another matter entirely. We are currently talking about the death condition not preventing movement


Marvelous use of ad hominem with a lovely segue into ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusions or missing the point.

Can you or can you not, prove through the rules as written that a dead creature's departed soul, currently residing on an outer plane, can take actions with its former body? When you do, let me know. Until then, enjoy your "fun".

I have proven it, see the other's responses. I am truly sorry for you. If you cannot understand strict RAW, then you will have a rough time on these boards.

EDIT:
That's the problem with this entire discussion. You're only unconscious at -1 through -9 hp. It techically doesn't say you remain unconscious and unable to act at -10 or dead, which is the entire premise of the OP's argument.

as has been said, -10 < 0 (your current nonlethal damage) and so you are unconscious. That is a separate think from being able or unable to act because you are dead. And it is certainly a different problem that may, or may not be able to be overcome. Nothing about being at -10, or dead, or soulless, stops you from continuing to adventure. Being unconscious and dead and thus unable to receive healing might.

[DarkSoul]

That's not how that works. In general, you can take actions. This remains true unless something specifies you can no longer take actions. The burden is on you to provide a source for "you can't act without a soul". Otherwise, the general rule of being able to act applies. Evidently it is how it works, considering what you quoted from me was my repeating your exact statement back to you, changed only to support my side of the discussion. Whose interpretation of what the rules don't say is more valid? The OP, and now you, contend that your body can act while your soul isn't in it. I contend you cannot. Consult the RAW and tell me who's right.


Again, we manage to move just fine without having souls in real life, why do you assume people in DnD need them more than we do? A body still has a brain to think with, muscles to move with, why couldn't it act without a soul?I don't assume people in D&D need souls more than we do. There is undeniable proof according to RAW that people in-game have souls, and therefore whether you believe we have them in real life is, again, irrelevant. Because people in-game have souls, there is still the need to prove that a body can act while its soul is on a completely different plane of existence.

[DarkSoul]

I have proven it, see the other's responses. I am truly sorry for you. If you cannot understand strict RAW, then you will have a rough time on these boards.You've proven nothing. You've asserted that because the rules don't say you can't act when dead, then you can, which is a textbook example of argument from ignorance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). Yes, I'll readily admit that my assertion that the rules don't say you can act when dead are guilty of the same logical fallacy. I will not, however, sit back and put up with the constant questioning of my ability to understand the rules as it's not me who has the problem. Your entire premise is flawed because it's based completely on what the Rules As Written don't say, instead of what they do. They don't say you can take actions while dead because you're technically not unconscious. They don't say you can't take actions when dead, though, so the argument has no correct answer by RAW, and is thus nothing more than a dysfunction subject to DM interpretation. You like to believe your interpretation is correct. I like to believe mine is, and you've provided zero undeniable pieces of evidence to prove me wrong.

[Immabozo]

Evidently it is how it works, considering what you quoted from me was my repeating your exact statement back to you, changed only to support my side of the discussion. Whose interpretation of what the rules don't say is more valid? The OP, and now you, contend that your body can act while your soul isn't in it. I contend you cannot. Consult the RAW and tell me who's right.

The RAW says you can take actions. It says you can take standard, move, immediate, swift and free actions. It does not say that a soul is required, it does not say you need to be alive and it does not say you cannot be dead. Dead does not say you cannot take actions when dead. There is no RAW for what a soul does, or how it has any effect on the game. Say saying you have no soul does nothing per RAW because a soul neither grants, anything, nor does it take anything from you upon leaving. That is the RAW. Would you like me to quote it for a third time?


I don't assume people in D&D need souls more than we do. There is undeniable proof according to RAW that people in-game have souls, and therefore whether you believe we have them in real life is, again, irrelevant. Because people in-game have souls, there is still the need to prove that a body can act while its soul is on a completely different plane of existence.

You got that half right. There is an undeniable presence of souls in the game. What do the do? Do the enable anything? How do you get one? Can you get a new one if you are sick of this one? Does a sould own a body and thus separating them is like separating a driver from the car? Not answered.

Therefore, what we DO have is a general statement that you CAN do certain things and nothing has expressly taken away that capability.

EDIT:
You've proven nothing. You've asserted that because the rules don't say you can't act when dead, then you can, which is a textbook example of argument from ignorance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). Yes, I'll readily admit that my assertion that the rules don't say you can act when dead are guilty of the same logical fallacy. I will not, however, sit back and put up with the constant questioning of my ability to understand the rules as it's not me who has the problem. Your entire premise is flawed because it's based completely on what the Rules As Written don't say, instead of what they do. They don't say you can take actions while dead because you're technically not unconscious. They don't say you can't take actions when dead, though, so the argument has no correct answer by RAW, and is thus nothing more than a dysfunction subject to DM interpretation. You like to believe your interpretation is correct. I like to believe mine is, and you've provided zero undeniable pieces of evidence to prove me wrong.

I am guessing you are a lawyer, and think that the rules of law apply to D&D, or a philosopher, and think that philosophy needs to have a bearing on D&D, or a psychiatrist and think that your training in the field of the mind gives you an insight behind the rules, or a combination thereof, or something like this. Well, you are not reading the rules exactly as they are WRITTEN. Logic has nothing to do with how the rules were written. I am not arguing with a brick wall that will not look, see, or listen to facts that are displayed in front of your face.

EDIT #2: You are incorrect, it is what the rules DO say that fuels my argument. You can act unless something says you cant. Then proceed to find that, even in death, nothing says you cannot continue to act

[Segev]

EDIT #2: You are incorrect, it is what the rules DO say that fuels my argument. You can act unless something says you cant. Then proceed to find that, even in death, nothing says you cannot continue to act

Well, except for the combination of things which also make you unconscious at all times that you are dead. And since you can't act while unconscious, you thus can't act while dead.

[DarkSoul]

The RAW says you can take actions. It says you can take standard, move, immediate, swift and free actions. Correct. I agree completely.

It does not say that a soul is required, it does not say you need to be alive and it does not say you cannot be dead. Dead does not say you cannot take actions when dead.Also correct, however my claim that it does not say your soulless dead body cannot act because your soul is on another plane is just as correct because nothing in the rules contradicts it.

There is no RAW for what a soul does, or how it has any effect on the game. Say saying you have no soul does nothing per RAW because a soul neither grants, anything, nor does it take anything from you upon leaving. That is the RAW. Would you like me to quote it for a third time?Yes there is. Page 279 of the DMG, or the SRD under "Deck of Many Things > The Void": A body without a soul continues to function, as though comatose. Do you need a game definition of comatose or does this one suffice (https://www.google.com/search?q=define+comatose&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)?

You got that half right. There is an undeniable presence of souls in the game. What do the do? Do the enable anything? How do you get one? Can you get a new one if you are sick of this one? Does a sould own a body and thus separating them is like separating a driver from the car? Not answered.Answered in the link up there. They keep a body conscious. They enable you to be conscious and act as opposed to unconscious. You're born with one, otherwise MAGIC! No. Yes. Respectively.


Therefore, what we DO have is a general statement that you CAN do certain things and nothing has expressly taken away that capability.Other than being at -10 hp with nonlethal damage greater than your current hp, having no soul which renders you comatose(which is commonly known as unconscious). Other than those, nothing has expressly taken away your ability to act when dead. However, nothing grants it either, therefore dysfunction. You're not right, and neither am I. Don't tell me I don't know how to read RAW again. I read what's there, you assume what's not there.

[Immabozo]

Well, except for the combination of things which also make you unconscious at all times that you are dead. And since you can't act while unconscious, you thus can't act while dead.

I addressed that a few post back as being a factor. But the fact the dead, in and of itself does not, is amusing. Remember, I am not trying to make a build, just a discussion of funny game dysfunctions.


stuff and things

You finally give me concrete rules as the game has written them and a fact about the behavior of a soul and a body the is not a direct effect from a magical item. The DoMT does not render the body comatose. There is finally a reference about what a soul does!

Although, I would like to point out a hilarious dysfunction. Dead does not directly prevent you from taking actions. Being comatose and unconscious, while dead, is what does. Also, if you were sick, stunned, etc, you remain so, in death!


Also correct, however my claim that it does not say your soulless dead body cannot act because your soul is on another plane [I]is just as correct because nothing in the rules contradicts it.

This is not RAW. RAW doesn't say kittens dont rain from the sky, or that gravity exists, or that the flying spaghetti monster does not. What you quoted about the aftermath of that card from DoMT, is.

[Troacctid]

This is not RAW. RAW doesn't say kittens dont rain from the sky, or that gravity exists, or that the flying spaghetti monster does not. What you quoted about the aftermath of that card from DoMT, is.
RAW actually does explicitly say gravity exists. It's in the rules for planar traits.

[DarkSoul]

This is not RAW. RAW doesn't say kittens dont rain from the sky, or that gravity exists, or that the flying spaghetti monster does not.RAW doesn't say any of those things, however neither does it specifically prohibit any of them. It's why Pun-Pun gets to have the manipulate form ability. There's nothing in RAW that says he can't, regardless of how unlikely such an event would be in-game.

You're right though, the fact that strictly by RAW you have to jump through a bunch of hoops to justify saying "You're dead, you can't act." is pretty amusing in an absurd sort of way.

[tiercel]

How does one obtain adventuring XP in a world where death doesn't stop anything?

Everyone forgoes weapons and offensive magic, and instead it's all Diplomancy?

[Immabozo]

RAW actually does explicitly say gravity exists. It's in the rules for planar traits.

You are very right. I did not overly think about those examples.


RAW doesn't say any of those things, however neither does it specifically prohibit any of them. It's why Pun-Pun gets to have the manipulate form ability. There's nothing in RAW that says he can't, regardless of how unlikely such an event would be in-game.

You're right though, the fact that strictly by RAW you have to jump through a bunch of hoops to justify saying "You're dead, you can't act." is pretty amusing in an absurd sort of way.

Exactly my point. Absurd and funny.


How does one obtain adventuring XP in a world where death doesn't stop anything?

Everyone forgoes weapons and offensive magic, and instead it's all Diplomancy?

Death doesn't directly stop someone from living, but it most certain does grant exp, since exp is granted upon death. But then, of Game of Thrones has taught us anything, what is dead may never die!

[Segev]

Extremely pedantic note: "RAW does blah blah" or "RAW says blah blah" is technically poor grammar. "RAW" stands for "Rules As Written." The correct grammatical construction is the same as without reducing it to an acronym: "The rules as written say..." is correct, thus "The RAW say..." is correct.

TL;DR: It's "The RAW," not "RAW."

[Immabozo]

Extremely pedantic note: "RAW does blah blah" or "RAW says blah blah" is technically poor grammar. "RAW" stands for "Rules As Written." The correct grammatical construction is the same as without reducing it to an acronym: "The rules as written say..." is correct, thus "The RAW say..." is correct.

TL;DR: It's "The RAW," not "RAW."

haha, you are correct,.

In WWII Germany, there is a council reporting to Hitler, "We are just mining too many trees, we have no where to store them." says one of Hitler's generals, to which Hitler responds, "Mine less." And the Grammar Nazi speaks up, "mine fewer"

[tiercel]

Death doesn't directly stop someone from living, but it most certain does grant exp, since exp is granted upon death. But then, of Game of Thrones has taught us anything, what is dead may never die!

Does death grant experience?

"Overcoming the encounter," isn't it? For combat, that's a bit problematic when the foe you just "killed" keeps taking actions.

[Immabozo]

Does death grant experience?

"Overcoming the encounter," isn't it? For combat, that's a bit problematic when the foe you just "killed" keeps taking actions.

hmmm, haha. Well, if they are immune to falling unconscious from having nonlethal damage (0) > current HP -10, or have no soul to begin with (like mindless undead?) and thus not subject to being catatonic for loss of said soul, then you have a problem, if not, then you have nothing to worry about

[JKTrickster]

You know, I don't think this is a GiantITP boards until I see people arguing very passionately over the importance of death in the RAW every few months or so.

Never change GiantITP. Never change.