Director of Narrative
|
It's been a while since I've posted a rules question. I suppose that's a good thing considering one of my games hasn't ground to a halt while everyone discusses what's the right way to interpret a spell or rule. The DM just made a ruling and we went on with our game with the understanding that we'd research this throughout the week.
Tonight at my Tuesday Greyhawk game we were battling some devilish critters in the Bright Desert when our dervish fighter took an awesome amount of damage that would set him at -27. The cleric/mage cast Close Wounds as an imediate action. Dervish lives.
One of the things we had discussed was when it comes to dying and dead. The PH says that you are dying from -1 to -9 and dead at -10 and lower. The "or lower" seemed to be the sticking point.
Close Wounds (SC 48) immediately heals 1d4+1 per caster level to a maximum of +5, granting a maximum of 9 points of healing. It is a second level spell.
It seems like the intent of the spell is to keep lower level PCs from dying, but I mentioned that it seemed that the limits were written into the spell with the maximum amount of healing being 9 to where if even you were at -10 (dead) you'd still only be at -1 (still technically useless). Being at -10 is the example given in the spell description.
The decision has already been made and we agreed that what was discovered and discussed would be applied next time the spell or situation came up. I wanted to see what all y'all thought about any or all of these points, especially you spell-chunking and rule-munching folks out there.
Well if the example in the spell description involves reviving a character from -10, I'd say that the DM ruled correctly.
I don't think 9 is meant to be significant; d4 probably just seemed like an appropriate die for the spell, and the cap is a standard multiple of 5 for its level.
in my game it would have happened like Mothman suggests...the character would not have been saved unless the total healing brought him to -9 or more HP.
I hope the dead character is on good terms with the deities in your campaign...
|
We had this discussion come up in our game. Our problem was someone read the rules wrong and just saw the part about preventing some of the damage to the target (in this case he stopped 80+ points of damage from a critial hit). What we came up with was: the intent of the spell is to prevent a character death. That is why it is an instant spell. BUT it only heals 1d4+1 /CL. So while it CAN bring someone back above -10, in your case it couldn't because it would not heal enough to bring him above -10.
So yeah, He's dead Jim.
The example I was able to find in the SRD is in the definition of "Dead": "The character’s hit points are reduced to –10" This implies to me that once you reach -10, you don't go any lower, so Close Wounds would work.
Another thing to consider is the Revivify spell (also from the Spell Compendium), which if cast within 1 round will bring the dead person back to life at -1hp, with no level loss or Con loss and no loss of prepped spells. If you rule that Close Wounds works (-10 is dead), this spell only matters for cases where the person died of something other than hit point damage. If you rule Close Wounds doesn't work (-10 or lower is dead), then this spell becomes the one that must be used for those who die of damage to worse than about -14hp, at a cost of 1000gp per casting.
|
|
Dead.
A couple of things to consider:
1) Most people (specifically including me) think it's just fine to keep hitting a regenerating creature and driving it further into negative numbers until it can be killed. Would a floor of -10 also affect such damage?
2) If you can't go below -10, creatures below 40 hp can be saved even from massive damage by a first level spell. Since such a creature can never take 50 or more points of damage, the rule never triggers. (Yes, you can rule around this, but then why this rule and not the other?)
The example I was able to find in the SRD is in the definition of "Dead": "The character’s hit points are reduced to –10" This implies to me that once you reach -10, you don't go any lower, so Close Wounds would work.
I disagree here...at -10 HP I would represent that with a slice across the chest from left shoulder to right hip, close wounds could heal that and at least bring you up to wounded and bleeding requiring a fort save.
-27 HP is being sliced in half across the same line. Close wounds doesn't have a prayer.
I, too, brought up Cintra's argument last night (I play the cleric who cast the spell in this game). The rules state that -10 is dead. Actually, the definition of "Dead -Condition" is: "The character’s hit points are reduced to –10." So, -10, -27 or -592, the number doesn't matter -when you hit -10, that's the floor of the rule and you're dead. -27 isn't any more dead than -10. Now, it wasn't my character that had just got chopped to bits and I'm just trying to do a cleric's job, so I think our DM was right in making the call and moving on with the game, but I CAN see it both ways, especially with the "-10 or lower" statement in the PH. I'd love to hear from the spell's author on the actual intent. It IS a very nice spell to keep lower-level PCs alive when Raise Dead is out of the question. I think the call was right for our purposes, but I'd love to hear more consensus on the matter so we get it right next time.
Fleece66
I disagree here...at -10 HP I would represent that with a slice across the chest from left shoulder to right hip, close wounds could heal that and at least bring you up to wounded and bleeding requiring a fort save.-27 HP is being sliced in half across the same line. Close wounds doesn't have a prayer.
Actually, Drone (and with all due respect)-the rules don't say ANYTHING regarding severity of damage, so your statements are conjecture. Good imagination, but conjecture nonetheless =) What the rules DO state is that damage is an ABSTRACTION -there is a good example of two fighters of different levels and how they react to damage in the PH. It is all an abstract concept designed to denote toughness in battle, wits, dexterity and skill. The rules say as much...
|
|
A similar event happened in a game about a year ago when I was in Iraq. The wizard asked if he could cast Freeze and then Stasis as a simultaneous action (hey, we didn't have the Core Books with us in the desert, just PDFs of the 1/2E books on my laptop, rocks were our minis, and I used a random number generator program for dice). I allowed it and our very almost-dead paladin recovered within two months (game time) in a monastery outside Hommlet (ToEE, AD&D1E). Yes, we broke rules, but we had a lot of fun, only occasionally interrupted by mortars, and ‘fun’ is what the game’s about; it was also much nicer in Hommlet than Mosul... ;)
My real point is, the DMG is pretty specific (just look at the title, Dungeon Master's Guide): the 'rules' should never get in the way of a good time...
To Daigle, specifically: As an aside, I like the way your team plays, I sense a real cooperative spirit; I bet it's a really fun group to game with :)
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I'm going to have to go along with the popular choice here: bag him and tag him. He's dead.
I believe that damage CAN drive someone below -10 HP and we use this mechanic in our games.
Was it a 3.0 thing that stated that even a single point of magical healing will bring a character up to 0 hit points regardless of how far into negative hit points they are or am I imagining things? If I'm NOT imagining things and it IS valid in 3.5, then I think it would have saved the character. I'm pretty sure this rule is just a figment of my imagination, though.
|
|
I strongly believe that your hp cannot go below -10 for the purposes of adjudicating spells like Close Wounds.
Dead is defined in the SRD (Special Abilities & Conditions section) as "The character’s hit points are reduced to –10, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect." (emphasis added)
Also, under Death Attacks (in the same section), we have the following: "In case it matters, a dead character, no matter how she died, has -10 hit points."
I'm in my office right now, so no way to easily research...but wasn't there an article exacty regarding this subject in Dragon, say March or May 2006?
(Or at least only "mostly dead.")
Drat. And I was only one level away from getting Skill Focus (Blave) as a bonus feat. ;-)
My thoughts:
While it is possible to go lower than -10, it is completely irrelevant. Save the case of the regenerating creature mentioned above, -10 hp is no different than -27 or -587,039,875,432. It doesn't matter what the end number is, when you cross that threshold from -9 to -10, you've entered an entirely new status (death), and the only way to reverse that would be through some form of ressurection magic. I wouldn't even have allowed the spell to work on the dervish.
That said, even if it did work, it still shouldn't have saved the guy.
Sorry, but he's dead.
The spell description of Close Wounds specifically states that it is as if the damage never happened.
It's an immediate action that interrupts the action of the damage being dealt.
I see. I don't have the SC, and this spells seems to run counter to the general philosophy of the "dying/dead" mechanic found elsewhere in the game (at least in my experience with it). But, if it specifically gives such a description, then obviously I was wrong (at least by the RAW; my solution would just be banning the spell because it rubs me wrong).
Nevertheless, the character is still dead, because -27 plus the maximum roll of 9 is still not above -10.
No two ways around it, the dervish shoulda died.
If I were the DM, I would rule that the spell brings the character from -27 to -18 ... still dead.
That would be my ruling too, maybe a little too harsh but thats how I've always done it.
This is the dead dervish speaking. I have to agree with the last couple of postings. Close wounds can save someone who is taking damage that will bring them to -18 or more HP. The max of 9 points of healing could stabilize them at -9. This spell is great for those close death situations where you just pass the threshold. This was not one of those situations. I had 21 HP when I was mauled with 48 points of damage. I am talking about spleen on the wall, liver on the ceiling kind of dead. Even after the casting of the spell I thought I was dead and the spell had only made me less dead at -18 instead of -27.
This whole discussion really boils down to how each person views death and whether you cap out at -10 or can go further. According to the players handbook you can go lower than -10.
I see. I don't have the SC, and this spells seems to run counter to the general philosophy of the "dying/dead" mechanic found elsewhere in the game (at least in my experience with it). But, if it specifically gives such a description, then obviously I was wrong (at least by the RAW; my solution would just be banning the spell because it rubs me wrong).
Nevertheless, the character is still dead, because -27 plus the maximum roll of 9 is still not above -10.
No two ways around it, the dervish shoulda died.
Its not really that potent once one goes with a ruling that one can have -27 hps. Essentially its a spell that can save your hide in borderline cases but won't help if your pulverized.
Several points regarding this debate:
1. Regeneration. I play the same way as Doug Sundseth regarding regeneration and negative hit points. If you are attacking a troll, you can chop it into itty bitty bits and drop it to -100 if you want. However, you are doing non-lethal damage to it. So I don't think that case is particularly pertinent to this situation.
2. The phrase "In case it matters, a dead character, no matter how she died, has -10 hp." This phrase has been taken out of context above. It comes from p. 292 in the DMG, under the heading "Death Attacks." What this means is that a character slain by a death attack is considered to have -10 hp. Since the PH is considered the "primary source" for combat rules, the "-10 or lower" phraseology on PH 145 (the section on "injury and death") should trump this phrase in the DMG for any case of death due to damage, as opposed to death due to a death attack.
3. Close wounds is actually a bit ambiguously worded, but I believe the intent is that the caster can instantaneously restore a few hit points to a fallen comrade, and the number of hp in question is applied prior to assessing whether the amount of damage taken would be enough to kill the character (i.e. drop her to -10 or lower hp). While hit points are notional, as I describe the action, it would be as the poster above said--"the orc's scimitar slices Krusk's throat open. Jozan speaks a desperate word, and a golden glow suffuses Krusk, stanching the flow of blood and knitting his windpipe back together." We have to keep in mind here that this is a 2nd level spell that is clearly meant to mitigate a blow that is mortal, but not spectacularly so. If you were just bitten in half by a dragon, it shouldn't be able to "close your wounds." And it certainly should not be allowed to trump a death effect, despite the wording on DMG 292. (No one here has raised that argument, but I can imagine it being raised by a rules-lawyerly player).
4. When you're at the level where your enemies are prepared to dish out 30-40 hp per hit on a regular basis, revivify is the spell you should have prepared, if you're using the Spell Compendium.
So yeah, he's dead, Jim!
In regards to delay death, it is also worded quite ambiguously. It is an immediate action, but it does not clearly state that it applies you apply the "death" condition for being -10 or lower. However, it also does not state a time limit for how soon it has to be applied after the moment of death to work, so that leads me to believe that it only works if someone is at -1 to -9 (or can be cast on someone who looks like he's going to be dropped soon). Once cast, it keeps the guy's heart beating even if he bleeds out, or even if his skull gets smashed and he's at -20, but it can't revive him if he's gotten to -10 before the casting. (To me, this fits with the spell's classification in the necromancy school--it keeps him unnaturally alive, but does not restore him to life). That would be my interpretation of it, anyhow.
Basically if your comrade is down and bleeding, or is about to be pounded to mincemeat by a hill giant's club, or something like that, you can cast it out of initiative order, and save him from bleeding, or keep him alive even if the club smashes his skull. As I understand it, an immediate action can be taken at any point in the initiative order, maybe even as you see the hill giant's club swinging downward toward your friend's skull, but it can't be retro-inserted after the giant hits and drops your ally to -10.
My ruling on this spell would be that you can cast it after the attack is announced but before the attack and damage rolls are made. If you announce you are casting it after the DM makes the attack roll, the action happens immediately after the attack roll, and if the attack drops Krusk to -10, he's dead and the spell is of no help.
So, actually, you'd be better off pairing the best cure wounds spell you've got available with this spell, which can keep your friend alive for a few rounds while the hill giant stands over his bleeding body and you can't come to his aid.
A further comment: I think the SC has all kinds of cool and interesting spells in it, but many of them (like spells in many other recent WotC sourcebooks) are worded ambiguously, or at least the wording hasn't been carefully thought out to cover all obvious applications or contingencies. My usual policy toward this book is only to make these spells available through research or the occasional scroll found in treasure. This allows me to look over the spell, determine whether I think it is appropriate for my game as written, and modify it or nix it if I find a problem with it. There are certain spells in that book that I won't allow in my game, such as the various energy orb spells, which I think are very overpowered.
An additional comment: close wounds, delay death, and revivify need to be viewed as a sequence of "death prevention" spells of increasing power, and when ruling on the effects of the individual spells, we need to ensure that the lower spells in the sequence don't trump the better ones.
A final comment: Thanks to the posters above for bringing these spells to my attention. I'll make sure to have a delay death spell prepared next time I face a monster with a "swallow whole" attack--that's an ideal use for the spell, since there's generally a one or two round delay between initial grapple and "down the hatch."
|
|
2. The phrase "In case it matters, a dead character, no matter how she died, has -10 hp." This phrase has been taken out of context above. It comes from p. 292 in the DMG, under the heading "Death Attacks." What this means is that a character slain by a death attack is considered to have -10 hp. Since the PH is considered the "primary source" for combat rules, the "-10 or lower" phraseology on PH 145 (the section on "injury and death") should trump this phrase in the DMG for any case of death due to damage, as opposed to death due to a death attack.
It is a very critical distinction.
Death to due to damage and death due to death attacks are treated as distinct and different things for several rules effects.So for example, even if you cast close wounds on someone at -10 from a death attack, they would still be dead, even if you had augment healing and they wound up at 1 hit point or more. Weird, but there you go.
Maybe that's where undead come from. :-P
(Oh, and a bonus point for Hierophantasm for getting the allusion in my previous post. ;))
|
Director of Narrative
|
Well, well, well. Another week another question about Close Wounds, and it's not necessarily about the DM restricting the spell from his game (which is possible).
So, to give y'all some background.
For one, the group is not at the level to be casting Delay Death or Revivify, good ideas, just a bit higher powered than the cleric could pull off, though he wanted to.
Two...no, the DM doesn't have it out for us.
Three....no the DM is not afraid of killing us, he ain't pullin' punches. (I'm a 6th lvl warlock with 24 hp{the cleric/mage has more than me}, so I thought I was gonna be the one to fall first.)
This past week the rogue was stuck out ahead of the party when he was subjected to and failed (yet another) saving throw and ended up "Held". Another combatant rushed up and pulled a coup de gras. The damage was not enough to kill him and he failed the fortitude saving throw. Having the spell cast on him as he was getting the CDG attack it was ruled that he was cool at -3.
Another facet.
*For the two players in my group that have accounts for the message boards and have posted...if I got anything wrong please correct me. Also, if you're gonna count this community as any part of "the rules" then read and post more often. I'm not saying this to be snarky, but I'm just saying that I've learned more about how others view the game and its rules from reading and participating on these boards for the past couple of years than in my entire life of gaming. Wicked resource, is all I'm sayin'.
So the question is "can close wounds prevent a coup de grace?"
Seems to be within the line of the previous rulings. I'm getting the feeling that this spell applies so long as the death resulted from physical means (no instant death effects), although, depending on the HP total the character brought to by the attack, it may or may not prevent death.
Well, well, well. Another week another question about Close Wounds, and it's not necessarily about the DM restricting the spell from his game (which is possible).
This past week the rogue was stuck out ahead of the party when he was subjected to and failed (yet another) saving throw and ended up "Held". Another combatant rushed up and pulled a coup de gras. The damage was not enough to kill him and he failed the fortitude saving throw. Having the spell cast on him as he was getting the CDG attack it was ruled that he was cool at -3.
My view is that this spell is useless here. It's essentially cure light wounds with a few extra benefits like apply at range and apply immediately. For that you get it a level higher. It's basically a magic band aid that can possibly save your hide from a mortal wound be reducing the wound down to just extremely serous. It can't save you if your head has become a separate object from the rest of your body and is currently rolling away at a good clip.
Absolutely nothing in the spell says anything about saving throws. It does not apply - try alter fortune.
My view is that this spell is useless here. It's essentially cure light wounds with a few extra benefits like apply at range and apply immediately. For that you get it a level higher. It's basically a magic band aid that can possibly save your hide from a mortal wound be reducing the wound down to just extremely serous. It can't save you if your head has become a separate object from the rest of your body and is currently rolling away at a good clip.
Absolutely nothing in the spell says anything about saving throws. It does not apply - try alter fortune.
Jeremy -I think you might be missing the point. I'm the cleric (again) who cast the spell. Under the coup de grace rules, if the player fails their Fort save, they are immediately reduced to -10 hit points and are dead. Pretty simple. As the previous discussion discloses, the close wounds spell (working just as you described) would, as an immediate action, raise that fallen character up by the appropriate hit point amount. You are right, it doesn't affect saving throws -it affects a current hit point total that is changed in the process of the damage being done or, as the spell states, the damage is "effectively prevented." The issue here is, again, if the failed save reduces him to -10 hit points and, if so, is this spell capable of saving a character from a coup de grace. I think it applies even better here than in the previous case, to be honest with you...
|
|
I'd only allow the Close Wounds spell to affect the damage done by the Coup de Grace, not the state after the damage and saving throw are resolved. So, if the Coup did 25 points of damage (normally a FORT save of 35), and you cast a Close Wounds for 10 points, the FORT save drops to 25. (All of this is predicated on 25 HP not being a kill before the FORT save.
Once you get to the point of rolling the FORT save, it's too late for Close Wounds to help. If you fail the save, you go to -10 and dead. if you then get a Close Wounds for 10, you would be at 0 and dead.
BTW, I make no claim that this is the only correct way to read the rules, but it's mine.
I don't know if this will help, but my original DM has made a rule that i use in my games. I do not know if this is a change or a rule he kept form when DnD was still in magazines...but...In my dungeons a creature does not always die when -10 is reached. I believe every person/creature has a different ability to "hang on" to that last strand of life. Therefore: a creature does not die in my dungeons until his negative HP are greater than the specific creatures CON (after all mods).
So if it were to be my dungeon the dervish fighter would still be alive if his CON is 11 or higher.
I don't know if this will help, but my original DM has made a rule that i use in my games. I do not know if this is a change or a rule he kept form when DnD was still in magazines...but...In my dungeons a creature does not always die when -10 is reached. I believe every person/creature has a different ability to "hang on" to that last strand of life. Therefore: a creature does not die in my dungeons until his negative HP are greater than the specific creatures CON (after all mods).
So if it were to be my dungeon the dervish fighter would still be alive if his CON is 11 or higher.
Except that this is the result of a Coup de Grace. The rules say -10 because that is dead. If your using some variant that allows characters to keep holding on until their at negative Con or twice negative Con or whatever then the result of a successful Coup de Grace should be to put them at whatever amount of negative hps it takes to make the character dead.
I still don't think close wounds applies in this circumstance. The -10 hps is rather arbitrary the failed save on the coup de grace resulted in dead. Calling it -10 hps was simply a fomality.
I still don't think close wounds applies in this circumstance. The -10 hps is rather arbitrary the failed save on the coup de grace resulted in dead. Calling it -10 hps was simply a fomality.
Well, in this case, -10 ISN'T an arbitrary formality. It states right there in the Coup de Grace rules in th PH that "the character is reduced to -10 and is dead." It assigns a SPECIFIC hit point total to the character. Since that is the case, there is a definate hit point pool that the close wounds spell can manipulate as an immediate action. Right?
I think you would be right if it just said "the character is dead." But, it does speficify a -10 hit point total.
I love this debate -I wish it were still getting some attention...
B.
I still don't think close wounds applies in this circumstance. The -10 hps is rather arbitrary the failed save on the coup de grace resulted in dead. Calling it -10 hps was simply a fomality.Well, in this case, -10 ISN'T an arbitrary formality. It states right there in the Coup de Grace rules in th PH that "the character is reduced to -10 and is dead." It assigns a SPECIFIC hit point total to the character. Since that is the case, there is a definate hit point pool that the close wounds spell can manipulate as an immediate action. Right?
I think you would be right if it just said "the character is dead." But, it does speficify a -10 hit point total.
I love this debate -I wish it were still getting some attention...
B.
I'd say that the character now has -10 hps + [close wounds hps] and is dead. Close wounds might effect the hps but does not effect the condition of being dead.
I concur with Jeremy and Doug.
-10 is arbitrary and irrelevant in this case. Provided the save is failed, death comes from the Fortitude save, rather than the hp damage. Otherwise, there would be no "coup de grace;" would just be an automatic critical hit with no additional special rules.
Also consider this: if the character were slain by a death effect spell, let's say slay living, how many hp would that PC have? Certainly he wouldn't be both dead and still at, let's say, 53 hp. But the spell dealt no damage. It simply killed the character. In order for the rules to remain consistant, the hp total is arbitrarily set to -10.
This is the same case for a coup de grace. A character who fails the save is actually slain by a non-damage dealing, death producing effect (but one that carries no descriptors, as it is non-magical). Close wounds only works on the damage dealt by the attack, not death resulting from a blown save.
I agree regarding the CDG discussion: you may be alive and bleeding from the sword wound on your skull, but your dead from the blade wiggling about in your brainpan. (damage vrs fort save) Dead trumps alive. Unless your dice roll under the table. Then your an Uncertainty Lich.