@NautArch, he's arguing a precedent on order of operations in resolving effects.

@godskook I see that, but I'm not seeing how he's walking that dog. He's citing a different situation and using it as an explanation. It doesn't seem to support the view.

Yes, and i"m saying Step 2 doesn't differentiate the trigger for Instadeath vs Blackrazor.

@NautArch, by his argument, you're not even DEAD until after you hit #2

And you don't resolve triggers from THAT until #4.

which doesn't make sense!

?

This makes perfect programmatic sense.

Its a standard queue format.

so is it that first you hit zero HP - sword devours. THere is no opportunity to get a remainder on the damage to trigger instakill?

instakill trump half-orc resilience, too

@godskook how are you resolving blackrazor before instadeath in 3?

Doesn't matter the order

The problem is that at step number two, there is an argument to be made that you are, in fact, dead

Ah - but it does. If instadeath gets you, the ring has a claim to your soul.

No, because its not in the resolution "queue" yet.

It doesn't matter what "being dead" triggers

I thought that as step 2? How are you not dead if you've received that damage?

instadeath isn't its own effect. It's a condition you check for when you drop to 0 hit points. if you've resolved taking the damage, you must have resolved checking to see if you have been killed outright

@Adam I thought the rule is if you have a remainder of damage greater than your max HP, you're killed instantly.

@Adam, we are in the process of resolving taking the damage.

This is all an interior resolution.

If you've gotten to zero, you've also gotten to -9

@NautArch, that would invalidate the precedent Seamus provides.

@NautArch Exactly. So once you take the damage, you compare the leftover to see if you have died. If you have, then you are dead once the damage has been applied

@godskook and that's my issue with @seamus' precedent

@godskook not if being disintegrated is being killed outright. Then it isn't about resolving effects, it's about relentless endurance's exception being met

@NautArch, if you take issue with his precedent, then.....you're off in "no rules godskook knows about" land, so I can't help you.

@godskook except his precedent doesn't apply to this situation.

@NautArch, but on the assumption of that being a valid precedent for this situation, his logic seems sound.

at least, i'm not seeing how it does.

I don't like the relentless endurance argument, though I'm not a fan of the "DM fiat" answer either

@godskook well, gee. if we assume a precedent is correct without it being correct and use it as a support for an answer...

As a programmer, I like the idea of an event resolution queue, but can't imagine where such a structure is indicated in RAW. @NautArch's answer seems more in keeping with following rules where defined and leaving outliers for DM resolution.

For perspective, we should probably try to figure out what life choices we made that got us to this point.

@NautArch, you don't think its correct, but you've provided no reason for that position. He's provided sufficient reason that I'm inclined to agree with him.

@JackStout I like it as well. But the problem is that there seems to be two events with a simultaneous resolution

@JackStout As much as I dislike the "DM fiat" answers, 5e is built around the DM filling in gaps such as these. So I guess it's the answer that the game implies you should go with

You can't take hit point damage if you never recorded your hit point score to begin with!

@godskook @Seamus My concern with the precedent not being valid is that it is an example of the specific text of Disintegrate (which has a qualifier of instant death) vs an ability that brings you to 1 HP when at 0 (but not if you're dead, which disintegrate does)

If I were a DM running into this situation, I would almost certainly rule that a more rare/powerful item would overrule. Then, I would swiftly move on with my game.

@JackStout Agreed. This is purely opinion but I'm inclined to say that an uncommon ring can't stop the legendary blackrazor

@NautArch, you've now accurately described the precedent. What's your concern?

@Adam Exactly. More to the point, it is RAW for the DM to make a ruling at the table.

@JackStout @Adam as a counter, a periapt of health makes you immune to Contagion (uncommon vs 5th level spell)

OK, I'll update the answer.

@NautArch That's comparing an item to a spell versus an item to an item

@NautArch That makes sense if there's a specific statement to rest your hat on.

okay, let me try and walk myself through this :)

@JackStout, rule 0 reigns at the table, but we're not at the table, so I don't really see the point of bringing it up. Its kind of a cop-out in a discussion of RAW, except as a last-order argument to stop-gap against sheer anarchy.

Being a paladin also makes you immune to contagion for what that's worth

instadeath is instadeath, right?

if you qualify, you are instantly dead

How instant is "insta"?

that's the question :)

@godskook Except that we've established there is no RAW answer. Pretending a RAW answer into existence doesn't work.

accordingly to the PHB, if you receive enough damage that the remainder is greater than your max - you're dead.

@JackStout, imho, @Seamus, provided a RAW answer that you've not commented against, so NO, we have not established such a thing.

@godskook He made a claim. It's his responsibility to defend a claim.

@NautArch You are killed outright, yes. Once that damage is applied, you are dead

@JackStout, a claim of X does not mean that we've "established" !X

okay, so the key phrase is "once that damage is applied". Application of damage brings you to instadeath and 0. I'm saying those things are simultaneous.

and I think @Seamus is saying you cross zero (which triggers blackrazor) and then continue on to instadeath.

is that right?

@NautArch, that's an assumption on your part though, as far as I understand thing. Its not necessarily true that at this speed of things, they actually are simultaneous.

@godskook I think this is the point of contention. Where does it say it is (or isn't?)

OK, answer updated.

@godskook It sounds like you are thinking of an instance where the guy is hit with a massive slash, sits bleeding on the ground for a second, and then dies. That situation is modeled by death saving throws. If there are no death saving throws, then you are not dying; you are already dead

@Adam, no, I'm not.

@NautArch Actually, I was saying the instant death and soul swallowing happen at the same time. It's the effect of the ring that happens later. But at that point, you have no soul to enter the ring.

@godskook Assuming they're simultaneous is a shorter leap than assuming they aren't when the text says that one means the other. That's how implication works. There's no programmatic time step.

@Seamus okay, so if the effect is instantaneous why does the blackrazor get the soul rights? Because it's more powerful?

while not unreasonable, it doesn't really seem right.

No, because it happens first.

Once it eats your soul, there's nothing to enter the ring.

Such a simple question at heart, and it turns the chat into a tornado of debate :p

I pointed to the ruling on disintegrate as an example of resolving two effects simultaneously. Relentless puts you back at 1 HP, but you're also dead by disintegration, so ultimately still dead.

@Seamus You still haven't explained why the soul had to go into the blackrazor first. All these things happen at the same time because the text simply says they happen. How can you say that one or the other is RAW?

@Seamus The problem I have with that, is that I think the ruling is that disintegrate kills outright, and since relentless endurance says you can't use it if you are killed outright, that's why it can't save you. Not because of some complicated effect timing resolution

@Seamus I don't see how this example is applicable to our case.

@Seamus ah - but WHY does it happen first?

No, the ring effect states that it happens when you die. You don't die until you resolve the instant death effect.

Meh...

But here is another question, Blackrazor doesn't say that it consumes the soul from your body only that it consumes your soul. Even if the soul does enter the ring, would Blackrazor rip it out from there and consume it anyway?

Clearly enough ambiguity here. So, like I said, I've updated the answer.

and you resolve the instant death effect when you die instantly from that amount of HP loss.

@JackStout, except I'm not assuming. I'm following precedent provided by @Seamus.

@Adam that's pretty interesting. There's no mechanic about removing the soul, right?

@Adam Sure...

@Seamus Where do the rules state that the effect of instant death does not occur at the instant of death? That's a stretch.

@godskook and we've shown that @Seamus precedent isn't correct because the example is of the specific edge case defined for Relentless Endurance.

@NautArch Not that I know of. There are rules for raising for the dead about returning souls from the afterlife to a body, but nothing about what consuming a soul means, or about ripping a soul out of a body

@godskook As I stated before, that precedent does not apply.

@Seamus I think the question is do you hit zero on your way to -9 or do you hit 0 and -9 simultaneously.

and I think it's the latter. This isn't a wounding damage type, it's an instant of damage.

The text for Blackrazor does say that if it consumes a creatures soul, it can only be returned to life by a wish. Nothing specific about how souls work.

@NautArch You never go to -9 in 5E.

There are no negative HP in this edition.

@Seamus sorry, i was just using the example of 1/9 HP.

Oh OK.

:)

Indeed. Though I would argue that hitting 0 hp and checking for being killed outright occur at the same time.

so we're back to an issue of simultaneous triggers

@NautArch I support this. If I take damage enough to kill me, I am dead. There is no delay. No philosophical pondering could be wedged between the two.

@Adam Maybe. The wording in the instant death rule is "When you hit 0 hp blah blah blah", which implies that there is a point at which you have 0 hp, but the "blah blah blah" has not been resolved.

hahaha

@Seamus the wording is "when damage reduces you to 0 hit points AND there is damage remaining..."

@Seamus No. That would be true if we were using an event resolution queue, which is a data structure in software, which is a different domain.

still not totally right, but a counter example: sageadvice.eu/2016/10/23/does-death-ward-prevent-disintegration

This whole thing reminds me of the Double Slit Experiment. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Yep.

I think we're right back where we started...DM fiat.

which considering the odds of this edge case occurring is absolutely fine.

I'd like to reiterate: The DMG makes it clear that the DM is responsible for arbitration of rules as defined and to also make rulings where needed. This means that it's RAW as written to compare one text to another, then improvise in the edge case. That doesn't mean that the choice made regarding the edge case is RAW, only that improvising is part of the DM's responsibility at the table. Stating those two things, as @NautArch has, is the only clear answer offered by the books.

If a PC dies, their soul goes here. But if they hit 0 HP, their soul goes there. Death occurs at -10 HP. Therefore the 0 HP trigger rule fires before death trigger.

Death doesn't occur at -10 HP; there is no -10 HP.

@CM_Dayton Again, there's no event ordering. There's no process. Everything happens at once.

@CM_Dayton As has been stated, there is no negative HP in 5e. Your options are 0 (unconscious, death saves) OR Instant Death (received a remainder of damage equal to or greater than your max HP)

ouch, sorry - didn't mean to pile on you, @CM_Dayton

Ah, sorry. version mismatch. I'll shut up now. :)

DISQUALIFIED

:P

::takes my dice and goes home::

@NautArch With Power Word: Kill, there is even a precedent for: Instant Death (0 < HP < 100)

oh, 5e!

In MY day, we only had the one edition, and it was ALL WE NEEDED! Humph! :)

@Seamus WIth the change you made at the end...do you want to change your intro line?

I did.

It now reads: Blackrazor wins ... probably

i'm still seeing "blackrazor wins...probably".

oh, i see. you kept the precedent :(

No.

Who's buying the after discussion drinks?

The instant death thing is such an edge case.

I vote @Adam. 'cause, reasons.

::hands out virtual beers::

So, the vast majority of the time it's clear Blackrazor wins.

This is really more of a thought experiment I think. If this actually comes up anytime, I'll eat my shoe

@Seamus Ya, I honestly don't see it happening.

@JackStout Cool. I've been looking for a way to thin out my bar. I expect you guys over in an hour

@Adam Hey! I am firmly against the fat-shaming of bars!

nevermind. Yes, in most cases form OP, the blackrazor gets it. In the weird instadeath case it's a tosser.

er tossup.

@Seamus have an upvote from me :)

on the plus side, one of my characters has the ring of mind shielding and I never really read into that much. I will NOT be telling my tablemates about this soul thing. I pity the fool who takes my ring after I die.

Thanks!

Thanks for all the discussion on the question! Cheers!

So maybe that's how intelligent swords are really made: Guy slips the ring onto a pommel because he wants the voices out of his head.

Okay, this may be a silly question but, can I ask advise on how too role play a char on stockexchange

?

@rubenZ It depends on what you need help with. For example, questions about how to roleplay an alignment will probably be closed as opinion based

My question would be along the lines of "How would you play a Paladin who is slowly breaking mentally and has started question his faith and very meaning of life?"

Plus contexts on how I ended up wanting advise

@rubenZ Anything by Kafka might be a good start.

Kafka the novelist?

Or am I way off

@Yuuki

Yes. Well, at least as far as the breaking mentally and questioning the meaning of life goes.

As for questioning your faith, I 'unno. I guess you could watch Silence?

Transformation into an insect is optional.

@Yuuki Or Doubt or The Magdalene Sisters

I don't think my Paladin wants to be an insect and okay, Thanks. I have some how ended playing my char so well or into a plot point my Dm wants to run I need feel like I have to plan how my Paladins behavior and what he wants to do

@rubenZ just doing a quick search, I don't see a lot of questions about how to roleplay such a thing on the site itself. You can try asking though. With enough detail and context, it could be answerable. The worst that could happen, I think, is that it gets closed as opinion based. And if that happens, you could delete your question if you don't want it hanging around.

The issue is, I am looking for advise and that would be an opinion but yea, worth a try

@rubenZ See, if you're just asking for general advice, that will be closed no doubt. If you have a specific problem or situation that you need solving, like you know the kind of feeling you want the character to have, but don't know how to roleplay that emotion, then we might be able to help you out

On the site that is. Here in the chat we'll help you out, pretty much no matter what.

Side note, how does one question faith in D&D? Popular representations of crises of faith in RL come from the inability to reconcile the existence of an omnipotent benevolence with the monstrosities and inhumanity that exists in the world.

Like some people becoming atheists after the revelation of the concentration camps in WWII.

Whereas in D&D, there's not really questioning the existence of gods. They exist. Divine magic exists.

You can literally talk to gods.

So what does having a crisis of faith mean in D&D?

Well, yea in the RW it is a very question if there are even gods, but in DnD in it beyond question they are real. It is more of "Is what I am doing right?" "and of so why do I feel so empty and betrayed?"

So it's more of an identity crisis that a crisis of faith?

@Yuuki You don't become an atheist in the world of D&D. You just question the wisdom of the tenets of your god, and maybe turn to a different one - or abandon relying on godly tenets altogether. You don't need to deny the existence of a deity to reject their moral authority.

Yeah, being an athiest in D&D is a bit like believing gravity doesn't exist.

@Karelzarath I mean, with judicious use of Fly and Mage Hand...

You'd be more of an antitheist, at that point.

It is both, to be at least. Too explain: Wyn Wynn " my paladin" was raised on the system of lathader is good and I must always do right by him and follow his codes. But in this last quest, he was blown up six times attacked by double gangers he was helping too free and has now found out the person who hired him to go do this quest (the quest was to go kill a vampire and Wyn Wynn see vampires as an very insult to lathander.

God of life and all that) is a vampire that hired him too kill a vampire. I then found myself with my party and them wanting to switch sides and join the other vampires after finding out are original quest giver my not be all that much of a good guy. Now for any one else at this point, okay it is a vampire I can deal with that and see how it goes but I am playing a paladin of lathander and I just got put in a place of "hey work for a vampire or work for a vampire"

Wyn Wynn left the dungeon. There is a lot more to this. I am saying like 4 sessions worth of stuff

Plus the only person he trusts anyone has magically left and no one knows where he has gone

Even in our reality, there's a BIG difference between a crisis of faith and a crisis of belief.

See also spiritual crisis, spiritual dryness...

@BESW I'm honestly having a hard time separating the two. Can you give an example?

There are many more ways to have trouble with one's spiritual identity and one's relationship with a higher power than simply not believing in the higher power anymore.

It wouldn't be "I don't believe in the existence of the gods." It would be "I dislike (hate?) the gods and refuse to worship them."

You can lose your sense of the personal relationship with the divine even if you still believe in the divine and want that relationship.

Wyn Wynn has no question in faith it is, "Is my faith the best for me?"

You can lose faith in your own ability to live up to your religion's expectations.

You can doubt the human implementation of the divine's guidance without doubting the divine or its guidance.

That second one is mitigated a bit by the fact that clerics can actually tell you if the deity is pleased with the implementation or not

That depends a LOT on the specific edition/setting.

@Adam You can still end up with a schism between "A is more important than B" and "B is more important than A". Both are valid dogma and pursuing either is in the deity's interests, so both can claim divine mandate.

In most D&D settings, a god's clergy infrastructure is left largely to its own devices in terms of interpreting and implementing the divine--the gods CAN intervene, but rarely DO except in the most egregious cases.

And then you have the Realms, where gods drop in for tea if they don't like the color of your shirt.

And for the lay person, there's little difference between an augur spell and a con artist.

Of course, the Realms also have gods impersonating other gods to siphon their faith.

@BESW, so would Protestantism as a whole be a "crisis of belief" then?

Wasn't that more a "crisis of implementation"? :D

The origins of Protestantism had a lot to do with a loss of confidence in the human infrastructure, but it was also about a disagreement over interpretation and praxis.

...and a decent amount of more secular concerns.

@Karelzarath, that's what I'm trying to grok here.

It'd be difficult to nail it down to a single factor, and quite wrong to conflate contemporary Protestantism with the forces which birthed it.

I'm talking more about an individual's relationship to the divine than about the mechanics of schisms.

If it helps, Wyn Wynn loves lathander just doesn't know if what he is doing is good for him

And I'm just saying that there's a lot of very nuanced and complicated ways one's relationship to the divine can falter.

Hence why I need advise

Faith and constancy aren't toggle switches, they're part of a complex relationship that needs regular effort and maintenance.

You can be angry with your friend without disbelieving in her, you can run away from your parents while still loving them.

@rubenZ, would working against the quest giver further Lathander's goals in the world? You can do an "ends justify the means" argument from that if you like.

The divine isn't that much different, and while concrete evidence of the divine changes the nature of faith in very complicated ways, it doesn't turn faith into a toggle switch.

O no, the party praised me and loved what I did after that session was over because "I played my char"

I've yet to see much media that deals with the nature of faith in a world with provable gods, and D&D has a hard time just wrapping itself around the concept of a pantheon without stubbing its own toe.

So you're working with concepts that are perhaps more nuanced than the system and setting are able to help you with.

I am being given a whole campaign to play out what Wyn Wynn wants to do and say to the world and also Ironically the only person he knows can help him is a demon

Or part demon that is

@CM_Dayton In some ways, very much so. The nature of faith is fundamentally altered in D&D.

In other ways, not so much. It's very different for a paladin, for example, than for a lay peasant.

@BESW Yeah, most players (myself included) have stumbled a bit on properly demonstrating polytheistic belief.

If we take faith as believing what you cannot prove, that's still very much part of D&D religion: faith that your god's concern for you is genuine, faith that your priests aren't leading you on, faith that your god can and will help you overcome the challenges set before you.

@rubenZ Aren't paladins about doing what's best for others, often to the detriment of themselves? Sounds like you're setting your character up for a Fall, especially with the half-demon advising you to turn away from the light, as it were.

@CM_Dayton, faith has more to it than the sheer existence of God. You have faith that your boss will pay you before he has ever sent you a check. You have faith in a lot of things without ever seeing them happen yourself. Everytime you eat a meal prepared by someone else, it is a small leap of faith that the food will be good for you.

@Yuuki Have I linked this? D&D pantheism isn't anything like any actual pantheon I'm aware of.

So it's doubly hard because it's not shaped like anything except itself.

Always have a key-ring with holy symbols for every deity in your game.

No, Paladins have oaths and a duty to follow the will of there god. @Karelzarath and no, the demon did not cause this. Where Wyn Wynn is now is by his actions of doing nothing but following LAthanders teachings and the words of his oath. So while yea, why the hell Wynn Wynn can now only turn to a half demon for help is a long story

I'm working on a campaign set in ancient Egypt, and I've been researching that kind of paradigm.

@BESW Yeah, that's what had me rethink my play of Clerics and the like.

and comes down to, I need to find the last friend I have in this world and all he knows is Gorok(the friend I am looking for) had a friend who was much closer to him then me

I think you linked it to me when I brought up the concept of a character that acts like that one guy from the Mummy movie.

I'm working on a campaign set in ancient Egypt, and I've been researching that kind of paradigm.

and he is a half demon named thantos

Side note, "irrelephant' would've been much better if you used Ganesha as an example instead of Thor, Freya, or Osiris.

True, but Ganesha's pantheon is... more complex and subtle than I wanted to bring into that answer.

(It's even arguably not a pantheon at all.)

Five minutes left to vote for moderators.

So exciting!

Tonight on "Profanities tonight": Me versus Black Dragon Kalameet!

Congratulations @doppelgreener and @nitsua60, and thank you to everyone who participated in the diamond election.

@BESW yes, I wanted to post something like that. Nevermind XD

Finally, an election where I am pleased with the results :D

Woo! Congrats, @nitsua60!

Good stuff! Congrats @doppelgreener and @nitsua60!

Mazel tov @doppelgreener and @nitsua60!

How much money would an average merchant have on hand (traveling, village, town, city)?

Liquid, that is, not counting assets.

@Yuuki in which world/system?

not much more than pocket cash unless they like being robbed?

@ACuriousMind 5e.

I don't know of any official source on the matter

@Erik Yeah, I don't imagine traveling merchants would carry much but merchants in their stores might.

@Yuuki Carry on, then. ::moves on with his D&D-free life::

At least so they have liquid in case adventurers want to sell them stuff that they can resell at a higher price.

@Yuuki As much as The Plot requires.

"The Plot" being a local trading organization regulating merchants' stocks.

I definitely need to name some organization "The Plot" just to have a villain say "I did it for The Plot!"

according to this you can buy a goat with one gold piece

"The Plot demanded I do it!"

So, however many goats worth of gold you feel is appropriate I suppose

Now I'm imagining the scenario of PCs buying a whole load of random knickknacks off a merchant just so the merchant will have enough liquid for them (the PCs) to sell a magic item to him.

I'm gonna open a Goats 4 Gold shop.

@Yuuki You're going to start delving into economy and banking structure to answer that question. Historically in the real world, the answer was "almost none." It was all done through a complicated system of letters of credit and the like.

@Yuuki Even if the merchant had enough cash to buy a magic item from PCs I doubt they would do so (unless they are in a large city where they could actually turn it around in a reasonable amount of time)

@MadMAxJr Giving gold for used goats?

@diego Really glad that 5e explicitly said that you won't find magic item stores. The economics of that kept turning my head in circles.

You could also go with lifestyle expenses I suppose. The comfortable lifestyle mentions living like a merchant or a skilled tradesman, and that requires spending 2 gp per day. You could try to reverse engineer some wealth based on that

Maybe a Goats 4 Gold vending machine.

Certified pre-owned goats. Only 1120 miles on this nanny goat and she still gives milk.

I used to have one of those machines near me

We could toss in 3 garbage bags worth of soda cans and get enough money for a plastic bottle soda.

Then recycle that in the other machine. And get nothing.

I can get another beer can for 3-4 beer cans around here

(Alas, these are container deposits, not the actual value of the recycled material)

@BESW I didn't realize we could have two winners, nice

@trogdor This discussion was about that.

fair enough

I am not active on Meta at all so I never saw that

In the end, aren't we all winners just for participating?

that depends on our attitudes, but yeah if you feel that way, then we are

@Karelzarath For some definitions of the word "winner" :P

@Karelzarath We don't all get a trophy, if that's what you mean. belch Hmm, that first Guinness was OK, I think I'll have a second.

Josh and I began the celebration/drinking to our bloody defeat, over in the election chat room ...

@KorvinStarmast I like the way you think. raises glass

Cheers! But now I must go, I am being summoned.

hey there @KorvinStarmast

hey there @ThomasWard

Strength through Chaos, @Shalvenay, my friend.

How goes thy day?

alright here

hey there @NautArch

Howdy @Shalvenay

how're things going?

Other than dog taking a fecesroll earlier, good.

OK here

Smooov