D&D 5E Blood Spear -- Do you only gain life from certain targets?

[Christopher6689]

Trying to determine whether any target who is reduced to 0hp by the spear adds 2d6 temporary hp, or whether this only applies to certain targets. For example, would reducing an undead target to 0hp allow the player to add 2d6 temporary hp, or does the fact that it is undead prevent this from applying since the spear "drains life from those it kills and transfers that life to its wielder"? The description ("When you hit with a melee attack using this magic spear and reduce the target to 0 hit points, you gain 2d6 temporary hit points") seems to indicate that any target, without qualification, reduced to 0hp will add 2d6, but logic may dictate otherwise...

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Trying to determine whether any target who is reduced to 0hp by the spear adds 2d6 temporary hp, or whether this only applies to certain targets. For example, would reducing an undead target to 0hp allow the player to add 2d6 temporary hp, or does the fact that it is undead prevent this from applying since the spear "drains life from those it kills and transfers that life to its wielder"? The description ("When you hit with a melee attack using this magic spear and reduce the target to 0 hit points, you gain 2d6 temporary hit points") seems to indicate that any target, without qualification, reduced to 0hp will add 2d6, but logic may dictate otherwise...

RAW, it works on any target. There are some magic items that specifically don't work on undead/constructs, in which case it says so in the text.

Actually, as worded, it even works on objects! That at least I would consider a bug!

The DM is free to rule that it only works if the target is living.

 

[DemoMonkey]

Always start by ignoring the fluff when interpreting rules.

Any target.

It doesn't have to make sense, it's magic.

 

[Christopher6689]

I presumed that the description would specifically articulate that it required the target to be living if it was intended to have such a limitation, but my DM determined the target must be living (which, of course, he has every right to do). I also agree that, as written, this could permit 2d6 to be added by reducing an object (with assigned hp) to 0, but other portions of the description seem to contradict that and instead require that the target be a monster/person/creature or some other animated creature--i.e., "His was the first blood spear, a weapon that drains life from those it kills and transfers that life to its wielder, imbuing that individual with the stamina to keep fighting."

 

[NotAYakk]

Always start by ignoring the fluff when interpreting rules.

Any target.

It doesn't have to make sense, it's magic.

5e doesn't have fluff.

 

[DemoMonkey]

"Flavor text"

 

[NotAYakk]

I presumed that the description would specifically articulate that it required the target to be living if it was intended to have such a limitation, but my DM determined the target must be living (which, of course, he has every right to do). I also agree that, as written, this could permit 2d6 to be added by reducing an object (with assigned hp) to 0, but other portions of the description seem to contradict that and instead require that the target be a monster/person/creature or some other animated creature--i.e., "His was the first blood spear, a weapon that drains life from those it kills and transfers that life to its wielder, imbuing that individual with the stamina to keep fighting."

So, there is no fluff - no flavor text - in 5e.

The mechanics of that magic item are the entire description of it. Some of the text might not apply very often, but the description of the item is how the item works.

His was the first blood spear, a weapon that drains life from those it kills and transfers that life to its wielder, imbuing that individual with the stamina to keep fighting.

When you hit with a melee attack using this magic spear and reduce the target to 0 hit points, you gain 2d6 temporary hit points.

How the weapon works includes the fact it drains life from those it kills and transfers that life to its wielder.

The second paragraph gives some mechanics, but those mechanics must be read using the context of the previous text. It requiring the target to have life in order to drain it is reasonable.

Alternative readings are also reasonable.

Heck, you could definitely have fun with it doing strange things when it sucks the unlife out of an undead, and that matches the genre of CoS really well.

 

[Umbran]

So, there is no fluff - no flavor text - in 5e.

That assertion would need a lot of support, because it is an absolute - in order to prove it true, you actually have to go through the entirety of every book.

It is is also an assertion that's not necessary to speak to the real point of the question. So, maybe this is not a hill to stake a flag on, hm?

 

[jgsugden]

That assertion would need a lot of support, because it is an absolute - in order to prove it true, you actually have to go through the entirety of every book.

It is is also an assertion that's not necessary to speak to the real point of the question. So, maybe this is not a hill to stake a flag on, hm?

While there are context issues, the full text of a description is applicable to the determination of what is described. When the description tells you that the weapon "drains life from those it kills and transfers that life to its wielder, imbuing that individual with the stamina to keep fighting", then the target needs to have life to drain away in order to gain the benefit described. What is alive is not finely identified in 5E (undead? constructs? animated objects?) so there is interpretation to be made by the DM, but they should be interpreting whether the spear can draw life from the target in order to function.

It would have been better had they used better language to describe the spear in the purely mechanical paragraph, but the limitations of the less clearly mechanical description apply.

 

[NotAYakk]

That assertion would need a lot of support, because it is an absolute - in order to prove it true, you actually have to go through the entirety of every book.

It is is also an assertion that's not necessary to speak to the real point of the question. So, maybe this is not a hill to stake a flag on, hm?

In 4e D&D, there where parts of the rules books that where explicitly flavour text. There where explicit instructions that you could, together with the DM, replace that flavour text. If the flavour text didn't match the world, you where instructed to invent a reason why the mechanics still applied.

In 5e, the developers of the game have explicitly disclaimed that. There is no flavour text/fluff vs rules distinction.

There are sometimes terms that are Defined Mechanical Concepts, like "Weapon Attack", things that refer to specific rules. But that doesn't mean the text that doesn't refer to those isn't part of the rules.

That weapon has a description of how it works. Part of it is its history. Later, they include a sentence that appears to be purely mechanical. That does not mean that the purely mechanical sentence is the rules, and everything else is "fluff" or "flavour".