RAW, Death has no effect beyond preventing healing

[Merudo]

I read the rules and it seems "Death" doesn't have much of an effect on characters.

As far as I can read, the only RAW effect of dying is "A creature that has died can’t regain hit points".

Hence it seems like RAW, a character hit by say, the Power Word: Kill spell while under 100hp will still be able to fight, talk, sleep, etc, but won't be able to get healed.

[Angelalex242]

I read the rules and it seems "Death" doesn't have much of an effect on characters.

As far as I can read, the only RAW effect of dying is "A creature that has died can’t regain hit points".

Hence it seems like RAW, a character hit by say, the Power Word: Kill spell while under 100hp will still be able to fight, talk, sleep, etc, but won't be able to get healed.

You're thinking of undead. :P

[jas61292]

5e is not written with legalistic parsing of the rules in mind. Rather, it uses plain English. That means that if you are dead, beyond any defined specifics in the rules, you are treated as you would expect for a dead person in real life. And that means it certainly has effects.

[Merudo]

5e is not written with legalistic parsing of the rules in mind. Rather, it uses plain English. That means that if you are dead, beyond any defined specifics in the rules, you are treated as you would expect for a dead person in real life. And that means it certainly has effects.

You are thinking of RAW vs RAI. RAI you might be right, but RAW death in 5e doesn't do that.

[sophontteks]

Can't regain hitpoints and you'd be at zero or less, thus...

Unconscious- An unconscious creature is incapacitated (see the condition), can’t move or speak, and is unaware of its surroundings.

Then there is the decomposing bit.

[strangebloke]

A dead creature is not a creature. They're a thing. Things that are not creatures do not have things like actions.

" Choose a pile of bones or a corpse of a Medium or Small humanoid within range"

[KorvinStarmast]

You are thinking of RAW vs RAI. RAI you might be right, but RAW death in 5e doesn't do that. You are incorrect. It is sometimes helpful to read the whole rule book. Basic Rules pages 105 and 106 are helpful here.
Incapacitated
An incapacitated creature can’t take actions or reactions.
Unconscious
• An unconscious creature is incapacitated (see the condition), can’t move or speak, and is unaware of its surroundings.

Being dead means that your remain unconscious, and you thus remain incapacitated. You also (as you point out) can't regain any hit points. The functional result of that is the following effect: Your PC Can't Do Anything In Game.

1. Death begins with (in most cases with) "being unconscious" which means being Incapacitated. See those two conditions cited above. As cited in the basic rules, pages 75 and 76. The other cases of being dead that short circuit the death saving throw process do not change that those two conditions are linked to being dead.


2. Dropping to 0 Hit Points
When you drop to 0 hit points, you either die outright or fall unconscious, as explained in the following sections.

Instant Death
Massive damage can kill you instantly. When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum. ... Because the remaining damage equals her hit point maximum, the cleric dies.

Death Saving Throws
Whenever you start your turn with 0 hit points, you must make a special saving throw, called a death saving throw, to determine whether you creep closer to death or hang onto life. ... On your third failure, you die.

[Kadesh]

So, does that mean you can take bonus actions when you're dead?

[Merudo]

Being dead means that your remain unconscious, and you thus remain incapacitated. You also (as you point out) can't regain any hit points. The functional result of that is the following effect: Your PC Can't Do Anything In Game.

1. Death begins with (in most cases with) "being unconscious" which means being Incapacitated. See those two conditions cited above. As cited in the basic rules, pages 75 and 76. The other cases of being dead that short circuit the death saving throw process do not change that those two conditions are linked to being dead.

Getting killed through the Power Word: Kill spell or through Instant Death do not cause the unconscious status, so you are free to prance around even if dead.


So, does that mean you can take bonus actions when you're dead?

As long as you are not unconscious, yeah.

[Temperjoke]

What if you're only mostly dead?

[strangebloke]

Getting killed through the Power Word: Kill spell or through Instant Death do not cause the unconscious status, so you are free to prance around even if dead.

Yes, dead creatures can take actions.

However, we know from the DMG that the souls (IE, the part of you that matters) goes through the astral sea towards one of the afterlifes. So yes, you're free to take actions. No, it doesn't matter, since by virtue of what you are you are pulled without ceasing to your afterlife.

[JoeJ]

Of course dead characters can take actions. They take all sorts of actions as petitioners on the plane that most closely matches their alignment.

[Kadesh]

As long as you are not unconscious, yeah.

So if it's Component-less (or your focus is a ring so you don't drop it), and lacks S or V components, such as through Subtle spell, and is a bonus action, you can still cast your spells?

(Playing devils advocate in this instance: in game, of course, I would just say 'you' redead, roll a new character or wait until you get rez'd')

[JoeJ]

So if it's Component-less (or your focus is a ring so you don't drop it), and lacks S or V components, such as through Subtle spell, and is a bonus action, you can still cast your spells?

Ask your DM.

[Kadesh]

Ask your DM.
Hi JoeJ, please see the above post detailing that I wouldn't have any question in a real game. Considering that is out of the scope of the thread, however, do you agree that what I have stated is permissable by the rules? Or is there something I have missed in the rules telling me that what I have written is wrong?

I love little quirks of the rules system like this. One of my friends was telling me in 3.5 how you could save someones life by drowning them, which amused me, and this is similar. By attempting to quantify exactly what dead is, they appear to have left some rather amusing loopholes.

That said, I'm not entirely sure what the rules say on becoming a petitioner. The nearest I found was an old template from 3.5, but that didn't make any sense to me.

[AureusFulgens]

This is a bit absurd.

Look. Nitpicking aspects of combat is one thing. D&D's combat engine is naturally an abstraction, so we streamline the complicated real-world mechanics of armed combat and biological damage/healing and whatnot to make an enjoyable game where details don't get in the way of a good time. And we have a few oddities when we try to match this system with real life (one-handed quarterstaff, anyone?), but for the most part we can ignore them.

There's a difference between that and starting to question the basic concepts the world is built on. The PHB states that you need food and water to live, but does it specify what food is? No. So does that mean my character can eat rocks and consider them food, because the PHB doesn't expressly specify? Of course it doesn't. You would break your teeth or choke. Because in general, like any work written in human language, D&D materials assume that words mean what they mean unless specifically used otherwise. Food means what you would expect it means. The playable races thus far have a head, two hands, and two feet even if the rules don't specifically state they do (though in that case there are pictures). If you hit a window, it breaks. If you light a fire, it can burn people who touch it. Basic assumptions about the world are still true.

And death means death. It means exactly what you think it should mean, because any other way is absurd. Because every mention of death in the published books assume that dead people ARE DEAD. Because it would be absurd to use that word if it didn't mean the body becoming totally inert and losing consciousness and functionality (or however you want to understand death). We use RAI vs. RAW to debate things there's a reasonable difference of opinion on - places where it makes sense to ask "is this an acceptable break from reality in the name of game mechanics" or "does this make the game easier/more interesting." There is no valid difference of opinion here.

</linguistic rant>


5e is not written with legalistic parsing of the rules in mind. Rather, it uses plain English. That means that if you are dead, beyond any defined specifics in the rules, you are treated as you would expect for a dead person in real life. And that means it certainly has effects.

Exactly. RAW, the character is dead. And since "dead" is not specifically defined (the way a dagger is defined as "a simple melee weapon that deals 1d4 piercing damage", or suffocation is defined as "being without air for more than 3 + Con minutes"), it means what it means. So RAW and RAI are in agreement. Death is death. Any other way lies madness.



EDIT: I might have written this in a more serious/combative tone than I intended, so TL;DR - I'm approaching this as a linguistic question, about how words are to be interpreted, and I note that it's impossible to read any text without assuming that most words and concepts work the way we expect them to. So it's difficult to argue that death doesn't mean anything because it isn't given a status description in the back: the word is used intentionally, in specific contexts which match our expectations, so the only reasonable reading is that it means what we expect. I think this is the point where I should go write my dissertation on why RAI vs. RAW doesn't actually exist or something, I haven't thought this out all the way.

[Specter]

I feel moronic even replying to this thread, but if you can't take actions, you can't take bonus action. A bonus action is still a type of action.

[Merudo]

I feel moronic even replying to this thread, but if you can't take actions, you can't take bonus action. A bonus action is still a type of action.

You can take any action as long as you are not unconscious or suffering other conditions as described by the PHB. Death does not make you automatically unconscious so you can be dead and taking actions.

[Armored Walrus]

Boy I feel dumb. All these years I've been just rerolling new characters when one dies. If I had only known, I could still be playing my original character by just showing up and decomposing a bit each session.

[JoeJ]

Hi JoeJ, please see the above post detailing that I wouldn't have any question in a real game. Considering that is out of the scope of the thread, however, do you agree that what I have stated is permissable by the rules? Or is there something I have missed in the rules telling me that what I have written is wrong?

I love little quirks of the rules system like this. One of my friends was telling me in 3.5 how you could save someones life by drowning them, which amused me, and this is similar. By attempting to quantify exactly what dead is, they appear to have left some rather amusing loopholes.

That said, I'm not entirely sure what the rules say on becoming a petitioner. The nearest I found was an old template from 3.5, but that didn't make any sense to me.

Sorry, my comment should have been in blue. I think we all know how likely a DM is to rule that a dead character can do anything beyond propping open a door.

As for strict RAW, the PHB says that a bonus action is an additional action on your turn, so it looks like you can't use them if you can't take actions.

I was drawing on my memory of Planescape for petitioners. AFAIK there's nothing about that in 5e yet.

[jas61292]

You are thinking of RAW vs RAI. RAI you might be right, but RAW death in 5e doesn't do that.

No. What I said is strict RAW. 5e does not require definitions for every word. If a word is not defined, you use the normal, every day definition. That is how the game works. Yes, some other games work otherwise. The way you are pretending things work is how most people treat 3rd edition, and that is fine for that game. But a legalistic interpretation requiring explicit definitions is simply not how 5e works. What you are basically trying to do is like making a claim that 9 + 9 = 12. Yes, that statement is true.... in hexadecimal. But, we do not use hexadecimal in normal every day talk, and there is no reason to believe that we should be using it.

Nothing about the 5e rules implies that words do not mean what we believe they mean in normal usage. If it did state it worked how you said, that would be one thing. But it doesn't, so there is no reason to assume it does. So, if a word was specifically called out as having an alternative definition, then we should use it. But you can't just ignore other definitions because you feel like it. After all, the game isn't defining words like "hour" or "food" or "you." And I don't see you arguing that you can control your enemies, since they never define who is referred to by "you."

[Armored Walrus]

After all, the game isn't defining words like "hour" or "food" or "you." And I don't see you arguing that you can control your enemies, since they never define who is referred to by "you."

Give him time. If this thread dies fast enough, he won't have satiated whatever need of his that this thread is feeding... We'll have a thread that says "hours" and "minutes" aren't defined so, RAW no spell that last for minutes ever end, since the only time period that is defined is "rounds" of six seconds. It doesn't say anywhere that 1 minutes is 60 seconds...

Aand, I'll get sucked into stupidly replying to that thread, too.

Edit: I'll back off from that statement and assume the emoji in the title of the post indicates this is tongue-in-cheek, rather than actual trolling. Sorry OP if I've falsely cast aspersions on you.

[JoeJ]

Give him time. If this thread dies fast enough, he won't have satiated whatever need of his that this thread is feeding... We'll have a thread that says "hours" and "minutes" aren't defined so, RAW no spell that last for minutes ever end, since the only time period that is defined is "rounds" of six seconds. It doesn't say anywhere that 1 minutes is 60 seconds...

But that would depend on what your definition of "is" is.

[JNAProductions]

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20140902.png

[Armored Walrus]

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20140902.png

Pretty much... though it's an outside possibility that this thread's value lies in it's existence as a satire of every other thread like it already on these boards.

[KorvinStarmast]

Death does not make you automatically unconscious so you can be dead and taking actions.False. If you can't figure out why that is, go back to playing computer games, which can only be played by only following a computer code. No brain required.

When you are dead, you also have 0 HP (and as you originally pointed out, you can't restore any). If you have greater than 0 HP, you are not dead.
Therefore, the zero HP conditions cited apply when dead. Learn how to read the whole rule book.

[JakOfAllTirades]

If your DM lets you get away with shenanigans like this at his table, he's doing something wrong, and I pity your fellow players.

[Foxhound438]

>disintegrate says it turns an object to dust
>but it doesn't specify exactly what that dust is, aside from it being "dust", "fine", and "grey", so the object still exists and functions exactly as its rules stated before without any mechanical effect

k

[Occasional Sage]

Please do not be deliberately obtuse.

If this is how you play games, please give away or sell your 5e books and acquire 3.P books. All of us, you included, will be happier for it.

[MadBear]

I think the OP is on to something. Under weapons you'll see statements like: "Your class grants proficiency in certain weapons", except the book doesn't define what "your" means, which means effectively no one can wield weapons in 5e. I mean, talk about a major oversight. Don't even get me started on not properly spelling out what the words "grants, in, certain" mean as well. Such lazy writing by the devs.

[sophontteks]

I had to explain what a sword was, since its definition wasn't in the PHB.
The dictionary is RAW. Words can be looked up if you do not know what they mean.

[MadBear]

I had to explain what a sword was, since its definition wasn't in the PHB.
The dictionary is RAW. Words can be looked up if you do not know what they mean.

um the dictionary can't be RAW as it isn't part of the rule book (the whole Rules as Written). Your just another Newb playing RAI, disregarding RAW ;)

[sophontteks]

um the dictionary can't be RAW as it isn't part of the rule book (the whole Rules as Written). Your just another Newb playing RAI, disregarding RAW ;)
By raw the book is just a bunch of strange symbols :smallbiggrin:

[Malifice]

I read the rules and it seems "Death" doesn't have much of an effect on characters.

As far as I can read, the only RAW effect of dying is "A creature that has died can’t regain hit points".

Hence it seems like RAW, a character hit by say, the Power Word: Kill spell while under 100hp will still be able to fight, talk, sleep, etc, but won't be able to get healed.

A corpse is an object, not a creature.

Do we really need rules that state 'when you are dead, you cant do anything because you're dead'.

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

You are referring to a rule that relates to healing, not to death.

The full text is as follows
A creature that has died can't regain hit points until magic such as the revivify spell has restored it to life

This rule simply prevents spells like güdberry from being used as quick fix to death. There are no rules that related to death in the PHB. Death is campaign and setting specific.

[Lombra]

So, does that mean you can take bonus actions when you're dead?

It's been clarified that if something prevents you the use of actions then it prevents bonus actions too.

Don't have a source atm.

[Rynjin]

Golly this thread sure is an original topic that hasn't been cheekily brought up at least once a month for at least 10 years.

[JoeJ]

A corpse is an object, not a creature.

Do we really need rules that state 'when you are dead, you cant do anything because you're dead'.

Is "you" defined anywhere in the rules? How do we know exactly who it is that can't take actions if my character dies?

[MadBear]

By raw the book is just a bunch of strange symbols :smallbiggrin:

Now you're getting it. Although, maybe not, seeings as I'm just hitting random keys on a keyboard in response to the random symbols I see on the screen. It'll sure be my lucky day if this just happens to correspond to any coherent meaning for anyone out there.

[JakOfAllTirades]

By raw the book is just a bunch of strange symbols :smallbiggrin:

I cast Comprehend Languages.

[JoeJ]

I cast Comprehend Languages.

What do you mean by "I"?

[Kaliayev]

Yes, dead creatures can take actions.

However, we know from the DMG that the souls (IE, the part of you that matters) goes through the astral sea towards one of the afterlifes. So yes, you're free to take actions. No, it doesn't matter, since by virtue of what you are you are pulled without ceasing to your afterlife.

Man, just wish yourself back to the material plane. The other planes can't handle a wizard's ego.

[Cespenar]

What do you mean by "I"?

You have discovered OP's true purpose: sparking the philosopher in us and questioning not only the game rules but the rules of reality itself.

[JoeJ]

Man, just wish yourself back to the material plane. The other planes can't handle a wizard's ego.

I don't know about that. I think being transformed into a lemure for a few millennia will knock down that ego a bit.

[Kuu Lightwing]

Hmm... Many people are quick to mock OP, but I think the question is interesting. In my opinion rules SHOULD tell you what death actually means. This is a fantasy world, with gods, different planes of existence and such. Souls are real in this world, and if a soul is basically "you", then what you, or your soul can do is not that bad of a question. There are precendents when dead people turn into ghosts or other things and can affect the material plane, so, explaining what it means to be dead, is not such a bizzare idea if you think about it carefully.

Even in this thread some suggested that you go to some other plane. But then, I may ask you, if a character has Plane Shift spell prepared - could they get back? And if they couldn't, why? Is it because they can't cast spells while being dead? But nothing says that I can't, and that presents a problem.

Some people suggest to go look in a dictionary, but some of them basically define "dead" as not being alive and "alive" as not being dead, which isn't helpful. Some of the real world rules do not apply to DND - such as undead creatures, or golems - they aren't really alive, but yet they act as if they are.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Hmm... Many people are quick to mock OP, but I think the question is interesting. In my opinion rules SHOULD tell you what death actually means. This is a fantasy world, with gods, different planes of existence and such. Souls are real in this world, and if a soul is basically "you", then what you, or your soul can do is not that bad of a question. There are precendents when dead people turn into ghosts or other things and can affect the material plane, so, explaining what it means to be dead, is not such a bizzare idea if you think about it carefully.


No. The setting should tell you what death really means. Because you can use the same rules for a revolving-door afterlife, a no-permanent-afterlife, and many other variations.

[Kuu Lightwing]

No. The setting should tell you what death really means. Because you can use the same rules for a revolving-door afterlife, a no-permanent-afterlife, and many other variations.
Then it won't be that bad of an idea to say that in the rules - that the exact consequences of a death is up to a particular setting, and give few examples.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Then it won't be that bad of an idea to say that in the rules - that the exact consequences of a death is up to a particular setting, and give few examples.

I don't see why you'd have to state that--that's Intuitively Obvious To The Most Casual Observer (IOTTMCO). Just like you don't have to state a lot of things that are obvious.

[Armored Walrus]

, and that presents a problem.

Only if you are working to make it a problem, thus the mocking for the OP.

15 million people play D&D if you believe the data released by Wizards. I would wager there's no table out there that has seriously had to have this discussion about how the RAW interpret being dead. It's simply understood by anyone not specifically angling to purposely create a misunderstanding. This whole discussion is, at best, tiresome semantics for pseudo-intellectuals to sharpen their claws on each other, and, at worst, obvious trolling.

[KorvinStarmast]

This whole discussion is, at best, tiresome semantics for pseudo-intellectuals to sharpen their claws on each other, and, at worst, obvious trolling. Betting on the latter ...

[Bobbyjackcorn]

Wow, my core set didn't include an english dictionary, I guess I can't read it now.

[GlenSmash!]

I read the rules and it seems "Death" doesn't have much of an effect on characters.

As far as I can read, the only RAW effect of dying is "A creature that has died can’t regain hit points".

Hence it seems like RAW, a character hit by say, the Power Word: Kill spell while under 100hp will still be able to fight, talk, sleep, etc, but won't be able to get healed.

This is easily one of the best examples of pedantry I have ever seen.

Bravo.

[Willie the Duck]

Hi JoeJ, please see the above post detailing that I wouldn't have any question in a real game. Considering that is out of the scope of the thread, however, do you agree that what I have stated is permissable by the rules? Or is there something I have missed in the rules telling me that what I have written is wrong?

I love little quirks of the rules system like this. One of my friends was telling me in 3.5 how you could save someones life by drowning them, which amused me, and this is similar. By attempting to quantify exactly what dead is, they appear to have left some rather amusing loopholes.

That said, I'm not entirely sure what the rules say on becoming a petitioner. The nearest I found was an old template from 3.5, but that didn't make any sense to me.

I take it you were not around (by which I mean playing D&D and posting on forums) for the original 3e run, correct? The thing is, most of us are very much not amused by this behavior because we did suffer through this once, and I do mean suffer. "RAW," discussions about RAW, and people online browbeating each other over not recognizing their supreme mastery of RAW or their favored RAW interpretation kind of turned online D&D forums into very immature, toxic places. There is a very good reason why the designers of 5e decided to focus heavily on a 'rulings not rules' mentality.

Sure it must seem amusing to hear how in 3.5 you could save someone's life by drowning them (theoretically, in a ridiculously constrained situation). But once you've lived through someone howling on a forum over how "broken" the game is (mind you, in an edition with plenty enough of more genuinely problematic rules) because of that rule, it kind of loses its' luster.

Thus a bunch of us see the OP's this-is-RAW,-if-you-disagree-you're-wrong-or-thinking-of-RAI song-and-dance, and are wondering if (as Armored Walrus mentions) this is pseudo-intellectuals BS or trolling.


Golly this thread sure is an original topic that hasn't been cheekily brought up at least once a month for at least 18 years.

Slight edit on that. :smallbiggrin:
And even then, I should really have put '44'


Hmm... Many people are quick to mock OP, but I think the question is interesting. In my opinion rules SHOULD tell you what death actually means. This is a fantasy world, with gods, different planes of existence and such. Souls are real in this world, and if a soul is basically "you", then what you, or your soul can do is not that bad of a question. There are precendents when dead people turn into ghosts or other things and can affect the material plane, so, explaining what it means to be dead, is not such a bizzare idea if you think about it carefully.

This is a game. It is meant to be played. Most of the game is about fantasy humans, dwarves, and elves and such wandering from town to wilderness to dungeon looking for treasure chests and avoiding or fighting goblins and dragons and trying as hard as they can not to end up dead. That is the primary goal of the game mechanics and where the bulk of the language should lie. Every time the game design forgets this fact, we end up with unwieldy messes that appeals only to the most die-hard aficionados and actively puts off people trying to get into gaming.

In theory that game includes things like gods and planes and restless spirits. There should be some discussion (in the section on the outer planes, not in the general discussion about status effects) on the default nature of the soul or what living and death means and the like. But the instant that text stops serving the original goal of characters-background-adventure-treasure-plot-more-adventure-levelling-more-adventure, then it needs to hit the wayside again. Just like this semantic navel-gazing.

[Spore]

What do you mean by "I"?

That is why I like this forum. Start off with RAW jokes, end up with existential philosophy.

Am I playing the game or is the game playing me? The game is obviously playing YOU if you think dead doesn't add a few assumptions to your character's status.

[Willie the Duck]

Am I playing the game or is the game playing me?

You are in fact a PC being played by a monster during a rousing session of 'Papers and Paychecks.':smallbiggrin:

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

You are in fact a PC being played by a monster during a rousing session of 'Papers and Paychecks.':smallbiggrin:

We all agreed when the session started to not talk out of character

[Kaliayev]

We all agreed when the session started to not talk out of character

Wait, I thought we were in the matrix. You lied to me, Elon Musk!

[Willie the Duck]

Wait, I thought we were in the matrix. You lied to me, Elon Musk!

Elon Musk doesn't exist, he's just Andy Kaufman's latest bit.

[Armored Walrus]

Elon Musk doesn't exist, he's just Andy Kaufman's latest bit.

I keep wanting to stop looking at this thread, but between this and "semantic navel-gazing" you keep rewarding my weakness.

[Kaliayev]

Elon Musk doesn't exist, he's just Andy Kaufman's latest bit.

He's looking pretty good for a 69-year-old. He must be an elf.

[Spore]

You are in fact a PC being played by a monster during a rousing session of 'Papers and Paychecks.':smallbiggrin:

My player clearly has no idea what to do. Could you at LEAST optimize my stats a bit? Read the damn rules, you moron!

[Cespenar]

My player clearly has no idea what to do. Could you at LEAST optimize my stats a bit? Read the damn rules, you moron!

Maybe it's P&P 2nd ed, and they just rolled 3d6 in order for all of us? No rerolls, no takesy-backsies.

[KorvinStarmast]

Elon Musk doesn't exist, he's just Andy Kaufman's latest bit. *standing applause* :smallbiggrin: Well played, sir!

[Laserlight]

Boy I feel dumb. All these years I've been just rerolling new characters when one dies. If I had only known, I could still be playing my original character by just showing up and decomposing a bit each session.

If you're decomposing, you have to multiclass into anti-bard.

[Willie the Duck]

I keep wanting to stop looking at this thread, but between this and "semantic navel-gazing" you keep rewarding my weakness.


*standing applause* :smallbiggrin: Well played, sir!

Thank you, I wasn't sure how that would land. This board tends to skew younger than the other TTRPG ones I visit. I was imagining blank stares. I figure with threads like these, you either have to ignore them, call them dumpster fires, or break out the marshmallows and enjoy yourself. :smallbiggrin:

[Legimus]

The PHB states that you need food and water to live, but does it specify what food is? No. So does that mean my character can eat rocks and consider them food, because the PHB doesn't expressly specify? Of course it doesn't. You would break your teeth or choke. Because in general, like any work written in human language, D&D materials assume that words mean what they mean unless specifically used otherwise. Food means what you would expect it means. The playable races thus far have a head, two hands, and two feet even if the rules don't specifically state they do (though in that case there are pictures). If you hit a window, it breaks. If you light a fire, it can burn people who touch it. Basic assumptions about the world are still true.

This is the right way to read the rules. Not providing a detailed definition is not an invitation to substitute your own. When it comes to any text—even highly legalistic documents like contracts—you presume that words have their natural meaning unless otherwise specified. That's just a basic tenet of language. The PHB defines numerous conditions because they have mechanical significance. Being hyper-literalist is funny, but it's pretty much always the wrong way to understand the meaning of something. So using the natural meaning, dead means dead. It means the life is gone from something and it can no longer do anything. You want it to take actions, you have to make it not-dead. By definition, dead things don't act. They are inanimate.

But you can go further and look at the broader context. If death doesn't have any meaning beyond the prevention of healing, the whole game becomes absurd. What would be the point of abilities that prevent death? Or of abilities that resurrect the dead? Hell, what's the purpose of hit points if you don't die when they run out? D&D is played in a world that is supposed to follow a lot of the same basic rules as our own. It would be ridiculous to go through the process of dropping to 0 HP and failing death saves, only to hop up again and getting back into the action. Combat would never end. Players would never be in danger. It's just a nonsensical way to read the rules. And we avoid nonsensical readings. Why? Because they make no sense.

This isn't RAW vs. RAI. This is just basic rules for understanding language. My background is in law, so I see first year law students trying to get cute with things like this all the time. "The contract doesn't define death! That means we can apply whatever definition we want!" No. That's obtuse and wrong.

[War_lord]

We laugh at the OP, but this kind of stupid pedantry over the simplest questions is the entire field of academic study called philosophy.

[Lord8Ball]

Ring of mind shielding w/ gem + magic jar+ sutble metamagic. If you can take actions while dead, but not unconscious or incapacitated does this mean that you can have parasitic immortality by using this method? Death->ring->gem->possesion-> repeat with a side of subtle counterspell. I'm thinking that because you are not unconscious and technically not incapacitated since you are able to use an actions inside both items that this could be a viable strategy.

[RMcD]

Y'all are so hateful.

OP found something funny in the book.

He obviously would not play a game where he said I've been power word killed so my character has not been impacted at all.

[jas61292]

Y'all are so hateful.

OP found something funny in the book.

He obviously would not play a game where he said I've been power word killed so my character has not been impacted at all.

It's not hate. It's shutting down bad reading.

He did not find something funny. He made up an entire concept not in the rules and precedes to show how it breaks the rules. Except as this concept is not in the rules, it does not affect the rules.

The lack of a definition of death has about as much effect as the lack of a definition of "you," "food," or "and." That is to say, none.

[UrielAwakened]

This isn't as great as the Rakshasa thread but it's approaching it.

People here get so mad at every perceived weakness of 5e that even tongue-in-cheek ones are cause to lose their minds. It's great.

[Willie the Duck]

Y'all are so hateful.

OP found something funny in the book.

He obviously would not play a game where he said I've been power word killed so my character has not been impacted at all.

OP's history indicates s/he can handle him or herself.

It is also their posting, not what their expected actual gaming might look like, that is getting the mild scorn. OP, deliberately or accidentally, wandered into a point argumentation that approximates 'that thing that made D&D forums obnoxious ~15 years ago.' I'm assuming they did so deliberately. If not, the tone is still pretty lighthearted and hopefully they are laughing alongside everyone else.


This isn't as great as the Rakshasa thread but it's approaching it.

People here get so mad at every perceived weakness of 5e that even tongue-in-cheek ones are cause to lose their minds. It's great.

Exactly who is losing their minds here? OP made a critique of the game based on a pretty ludicrous premise (that game books are expected to define what actions are available to a dead character) and is getting gently lampooned for it. That's... like the tamest thing I've seen on this board.