Negative Hit Points Details

[Bauglir]

If an attack kills you, do you stop reducing hit points at -10, or do you go to the full negative value that the math would have you? I'm writing an ability that's mean to mimic Close Wounds, but due to the ruleset it appears in, I'm constrained to a swift action (it can't be immediate). Thus, I have to let it target dead creatures and start healing from the hit point total the target would have been reduced to (and have it unkill you if it brings you up far enough), and I'm trying to figure out how, exactly to word that so that it works with RAW.

[Kethrian]

You go to the full negative value.  The rules do not state anywhere that -10 is the limit you can go "in the hole".  There are also effects, such as Delay Death, that either extend the negative value you die at, or remove it entirely, so those could be things you might want to consider for designing this ability, too.

[Eagle of Fire]

At -10 you are dead. You stop living. Your body turn into solid material as far as the game mechanics are concerned.

You can't heal something which is dead.

[RedWarlock]

At -10 you are dead. You stop living. Your body turn into solid material as far as the game mechanics are concerned.

You can't heal something which is dead.

He mentioned a modified ruleset. All such logic above goes out the window when houserules are in effect.

[Bauglir]

I'm writing the rule, I can say you can heal dead things as an exception to the normal rules. I just need to know whether you're actually reduced to some negative value of hit points, or if the game counts down 1 by 1 and stops at -10. Seems I've got that answer.

[phaedrusxy]

I'm writing the rule, I can say you can heal dead things as an exception to the normal rules. I just need to know whether you're actually reduced to some negative value of hit points, or if the game counts down 1 by 1 and stops at -10. Seems I've got that answer.

It stops when you're dead. If that's at -10, then it stops at -10. If you're a Frenzied Berzerker or have Delay Death running, it could be -eleventymillion.

[Bauglir]

So, let's say you have 17 hp and you get hit by a big hammer, taking 30 points of damage. You're clearly dead, but did you wind up with -10 or -13 hit points?

[Kethrian]

Well, considering effects like Close Wounds are healing that occurs before you die, and that you can take too much damage for it to raise you back above -10, I'd say it's pretty clear that you hit -13.

[RedWarlock]

Yeah, I'd go for negative hitpoints being an uncapped total, unless you find it to be too much of a problem for casters using the spell. (Even if the general rule uses uncapped negatives, you could always make it a specific exception in the text of the spell itself that it counts such healing starting from neg-10.)

[Eagle of Fire]

If you are writing the rules directly then I don't see the point in asking. Just say you can go lower than -10 and you're set.

As far as I know, there is no reason not to count damage past -10 if you state that you can go lower than -10. The only reason why the base rules stop at -10 is because you cannot be more dead than dead so there really is no point.

[zook1shoe]

the frenzied berserker specifically goes well past -10 hit points, so that is evidence that points towards 'no cap'

[Bauglir]

Basically, I'm trying to decide how to word it. Whether or not I need to include "As if...", specify beginning at the hit points you were reduced to, etc. It should go up tonight or tomorrow, once I'm off work. The whole circle just needs another paragraph of text, a bit of revision, and it'll be done. The answer seems fairly conclusive.

EDIT: Whoops, can't lock my own topics on this board, it seems. Edited post to reflect this.

[phaedrusxy]

Well, considering effects like Close Wounds are healing that occurs before you die, and that you can take too much damage for it to raise you back above -10, I'd say it's pretty clear that you hit -13.

Interesting point with Close Wounds. I guess it does go below -10, even for "normal" characters that die at -10.

[sirpercival]

Well, considering effects like Close Wounds are healing that occurs before you die, and that you can take too much damage for it to raise you back above -10, I'd say it's pretty clear that you hit -13.

Interesting point with Close Wounds. I guess it does go below -10, even for "normal" characters that die at -10.

Close Wounds is a bad measuring stick, in that the example they use has the character at -10 and not below.  There's no clause about "if they had fewer hp than -10, close wounds wouldn't keep them alive" or whatever, so we don't know what RAI is.

The Dead condition sets your hp at -10, so I think that Bauglir's thingy has to start at -10.

In terms of Close Wounds, here's my suggestion for what actually happens:
1. You, a cleric, have 17 hp left.  You take 30 points of damage.
2. Once that damage resolves, you will be Dead, which sets your hp to -10.
3. However, before the damage resolves (when mathematics still reigns), you can cast Close Wounds as an immediate action, which in its own words "prevents some of the damage".  Your transient life total was -13, but you prevent 8 hp worth of damage via the spell, and end up at -5.  You're unconscious, but still alive.

[Kethrian]

But once you die, would not any excess damage be applied to the corpse's object HP?

[Eagle of Fire]

If it is part of the same attack which killed the mob or PC then no. Because HP is an abstract variable which can't be defined well enough and represent your capacity as an entity to absorb and deal with trauma, not the total damage you can take before falling apart or being disintegrated or whatever you can think about. Nor does it represent the sturdiness of your equipment (but you can target said equipment directly with other means).

But if someone in my game decided to take it out on a corpse (for a reason or another) and don't want to let go... And that RP description doesn't fit... Then I'd certainly think about doing just that. Or try to apply sturdiness and damage to the body just like I would to a door or a wall.

[Yirrare]

This is how I see hp:

hp∈ℤ (that is: hp is an integer. {..., -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ...}), but with a maximum value of your max hp.
hp≤-10      --> dead
-10<hp≤0  --> unconscious
hp<0         --> Awake

By this system, if I had 15 hp and was hit for 30 damage, my hp would drop to -15. Since -15≤-10, I am dead.
If my friendly neighbourhood cleric casts close wounds, his spell must put my hp>-10 to prevent my death. Close wounds effectively happens before the damage though, (from what I read anyway, since it "effectively prevents the damage") thus using it in arguments on how HP works will give nothing.


I don't have any RAW wording to support my idea of how hp works, this is just how I have understood the system. It is fully possible I have added logic which was not there when I heard the rules. Hope it helps though.

Best Regards
Yirrare

[Agnostic Paladin]

I think that lots of tables enjoy assuming that hit points can go to negative anything - it lets you know just how thoroughly dead something is after getting hit for a massive attack. Also, plenty of tables have house rules as to exactly when you're dead; I've played in the past that you die at negative Con score. In my current game, you're dead at negative ten, but you don't actually die until your next turn on the initiative order, so if the giant that you bravely (read: stupidly) charged puts you at negative fifty something, the party can get you above -10 before your turn comes up, you won't die after all.