Hi everyone,
Found a way to get invincible per strict application of RAW!
If you are Dying and use Hero Points to stabilize, you lose the Dying condition but stays at 0 hp. If you take damage at 0 hp, you don't gain the Dying condition, as the rule states that you need to be reduced to 0 hp to gain the condition (and you were not reduced to 0 hp as you were already there). And you don't improve the Dying condition as stated in the Dying condition description, as you don't have it. Thus, you are immune to damage.
I don't expect any DM to apply this ruling :D
But the issue exists: What should the DM do?
- The DM can consider that taking damage in this condition is equivalent to be "reduced to 0 hp" and thus, you get the Dying condition with a value equal to your Wounded condition + 1.
- The DM can consider that you were already in the process of Dying, and that being stabilized is equivalent to having the "Dying 0" condition, thus increasing your Dying condition to 1.
I agree that this situation is not very common, but every time you'll get there, there will be a PC life at stake. Having unclear rules to handle that may lead to PC-DM arguments, especially if you are playing PFS where the strict application of the rules is expected.
I think there must be a clarification of this case in an errata.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you'd have to be really trying to cheese it to interpret it that way.
If struck while unconscious, your Dying condition increases by 1 step (2 on a crit). If you didn't already have the dying condition, it would make sense to thus increase into Dying 1.
If a player tried this interpretation on me, I'd just ignore it and apply dying as makes logical sense.
I think you'd have to be really trying to cheese it to interpret it that way.
If struck while unconscious, your Dying condition increases by 1 step (2 on a crit). If you didn't already have the dying condition, it would make sense to thus increase into Dying 1.
If a player tried this interpretation on me, I'd just ignore it and apply dying as makes logical sense.
It's strict RAW.
Also, I've seen both rulings called "logical". So, there's a glaring issue.| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
RAW, I'd have to cite page 444, last paragraph of the left sidebar.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you'd have to be really trying to cheese it to interpret it that way.
If struck while unconscious, your Dying condition increases by 1 step (2 on a crit). If you didn't already have the dying condition, it would make sense to thus increase into Dying 1.
If a player tried this interpretation on me, I'd just ignore it and apply dying as makes logical sense.
It's strict RAW.
Also, I've seen both rulings called "logical". So, there's a glaring issue.
It's a minuscule issue that only applies if you throw common sense out the window and you yourself state "I don't expect any DM to apply this ruling" so it's a bit disingenuous to call the issue "glaring"
It's a minuscule issue that only applies if you throw common sense out the window and you yourself state "I don't expect any DM to apply this ruling" so it's a bit disingenuous to call the issue "glaring"I think you'd have to be really trying to cheese it to interpret it that way.
If struck while unconscious, your Dying condition increases by 1 step (2 on a crit). If you didn't already have the dying condition, it would make sense to thus increase into Dying 1.
If a player tried this interpretation on me, I'd just ignore it and apply dying as makes logical sense.
It's strict RAW.
Also, I've seen both rulings called "logical". So, there's a glaring issue.
Not having a proper rule to handle a potential character death is a glaring issue to me. Around a PFS table, it is a very big one as you can't houserule a character death in PFS.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, we've all been at those PFS games where the GMs shrug and say, "Well you sure got me on that technicality. I guess you're immortal."
I would rule that the character is both immortal and forever unconscious.
Problem solved!
Yes, we've all been at those PFS games where the GMs shrug and say, "Well you sure got me on that technicality. I guess you're immortal."
The issue is not only that you are invincible per RAW, but that there are 2 rulings per RAI.
And half of the time I've seen a character death in PFS there was an endless debate afterwards, with most of them being caused by the bad faith of the player. When the rules are not clear on such a case, you can be sure it will be raised.Damn, guys, don't you find that a case of invincibility is something that has to be addressed?
Damn, guys, don't you find that a case of invincibility is something that has to be addressed?
I'd find a more glaring issue to be players trying to cheat the system to get out of something that the rules obviously intended (even if poorly worded to do so) over the basic technicality we're discussing.
I thought that when you were in that state, if you took damage you become dying 1 + (wounded value) again.
EDIT: Apparently that only applies when you have the dying condition, which heroic recovery specifically removes. SuperBidi appears to be correct in his assertion.
It might be a deliberate design decision. It would be kind of odd and off-putting for a player to spend a valuable resource to avoid death, only to be taken out anyways by a minor contrivance.
I for one have totally called foul with GMs who've cheated me out of using Hero Points to avoid death in older editions:
"Your badge deflects the arrow away from your heart, away from killing you outright. It is still a grievous chest wound, however, and you fall unconscious. Because you were standing knee deep in water off the shore, however, you drown."
If a player spends the hero point, they shouldn't die, full stop. In the example above (which actually happened), my character should have fallen in such a way as to remain face up, floating with head above the water, or perhaps having my upper body land on a sandbar or something. Point is, death should be avoided when hero points are spent. That's the whole point! It can be explained away narratively any number of ways. It's simple. A GM who does otherwise is being unnecessarily difficult/vindictive.
This isn't that rare of a circumstance. If you are reduced to 0 hit points from Non-Lethal damage, you find yourself in the exact same scenario: Having 0 hit points and only being unconscious.
The way I would play this out: You are at 0 hit points. If for whatever reason you would take damage, well you don't have a pool of hit points to reduce. So you begin dying with all the detriments that entails.
Largely, I would not have a creature attack a hero after they go down but there are plenty of effects that could deal damage to that player. Area of Effect attacks, environmental damage and a failed Treat Wounds spring to mind. All of these would result in a character taking damage in that situation, and rightfully so.
I tend to agree that a character who uses a Hero Point to survive should get the benefit of the doubt. But in some situations no such guarantee can be given. If a character falls into lava, no number of hero points is going to stop them from dying after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't that rare of a circumstance. If you are reduced to 0 hit points from Non-Lethal damage, you find yourself in the exact same scenario: Having 0 hit points and only being unconscious.
The way I would play this out: You are at 0 hit points. If for whatever reason you would take damage, well you don't have a pool of hit points to reduce. So you begin dying with all the detriments that entails.
This is probably how I'd run it too.
Largely, I would not have a creature attack a hero after they go down but there are plenty of effects that could deal damage to that player. Area of Effect attacks, environmental damage and a failed Treat Wounds spring to mind. All of these would result in a character taking damage in that situation, and rightfully so.
I tend to agree that a character who uses a Hero Point to survive should get the benefit of the doubt. But in some situations no such guarantee can be given. If a character falls into lava, no number of hero points is going to stop them from dying after all.
He didn't fall in lava. He fell on a floating boulder that has yet to melt, affording time for his companions to save him. How much time do they have? As much as they need, but make it SEEM urgent.
Heroic recovery should have meaning, and adjusting the narrative to accomplish that is unbelievably easy. I can't think of a situation in which death couldn't be avoided. It just takes the smallest amount of imagination.
I'm not saying a character should necessarily survive the encounter (a careless fireball should still harm you), but a hero point should stop the killing curse from killing you and also keep you from immediate harm, such as your unconscious body then falling off the cliff into the lava.
If a character falls into lava, no number of hero points is going to stop them from dying after all."You land on a tiny island of unmolten rock carried by the lava flow..."
IMO, Hero points should absolutely always work.
And that is your right. I am merely stating that this is no "rules glitch" and that being at 0 hitpoints and unconscious "only happens when a hero point is spent" is far from true.
Whether or not you allow heroes pseudo invulnerability after using a hero point is up to you as a GM. But it certainly isn't a glitch, and is not a special circumstance. If you have no hit points and take damage, you start dying. You start dying because you had no hit points to balance the damage. To say otherwise is making not only any hero that spends a hero point "immortal" but any character downed by Non-Lethal damage.
Me? I usually give them the benefit of the doubt. Unless things are so stacked against the player that there is no reasonable way for them to survive, they will survive. But remember, you can't hero point your way out of Massive Damage. So there will be circumstances where even a heroic surge of heroic power won't save you.
Thanks Ravingdork (and Beowulf and Mrspaghetti), I was feeling a bit alone on this one.
The glitch is not the fact that you can become invincible, but the fact that the rules aren't clear in such a situation. When a character's life is at stake, expecting good faith from all players is a dream. I've seen crazy debates in such situations with players asking the DM to go back 3 rounds in time to handle differently something they thought was poorly played. I think these rules need to be extra clear to avoid any bad feeling around the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For sure. Clear rules are important. In this case, I think they are as broadly written as they need to be to allow the GM to justify letting a player survive an otherwise deadly situation.
And that's fine. It just points out the importance of GM control really. Make sure you aren't letting people get away with murder (or whatever the opposite would be in this case) and you're all set.