11
\$\begingroup\$

Inured To Undeath (bolding mine):

Beginning at 10th level, you have resistance to necrotic damage, and your hit point maximum can't be reduced. You have spent so much time dealing with undead and the forces that animate them that you have become inured to some of their worst effects.

How does this feature interact with items that temporarily or conditionally improve your maximum HP, either through increasing the character's CON score or by directly influencing maximum HP?

A similar question was posed with regards to the Aid spell, which had some interesting discussion.

Does the Aid spell permanently increase HP for Necromancy wizards with the Inured to Undeath feature?

But I'm specifically curious on how the feature interacts with Amulet of Health, Belt of Dwarvenkind, and other features that modify the CON score of the user.

Amulet of Health:

Your Constitution score is 19 while you wear this amulet. It has no effect on you if your Constitution score is already 19 or higher without it.

If a lvl 10 Necromancer with a CON modifier of 2 attuned to the Amulet of Health, then later in their adventuring career unattuned to the item, would their maximum HP stay at the level of the Amulet or return to its unaltered state?

\$\endgroup\$
11
\$\begingroup\$

RAW, it prevents reduction of hitpoints from CON reduction.

The rules for calculating your maximum hitpoints say:

Or if you're 7th level and some effect lowers your Constitution score so as to reduce your Constitution modifier by 1, your hit point maximum is reduced by 7.

A reduction of your CON score leads to a reduction of your maximum hit points, which Inured to Undeath prevents.

I would rule against this at my table.

I would rule against this if I were the DM. To me, this seems like an obvious oversight that can circumvent the rules for magic item attunement.

\$\endgroup\$
4
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Does the game make a distinction between a recalculation of your hit points and a reduction through loss of CON modifier? \$\endgroup\$ – Amarov Dec 27 '20 at 2:01
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Amarov I was hoping to find something to that effect when I reviewed the rules, but unfortunately didn’t find it. \$\endgroup\$ – Thomas Markov Dec 27 '20 at 2:02
  • \$\begingroup\$ I couldn't either. It doesn't sit well with me that the game sees recalculation the same as reduction, but unless other arguments or text is put forth that there is a distinction, it seems that the interaction works RAW. Thank you for the answer, I'm going to keep the question open for a while longer to see if there are any further responses that have more information \$\endgroup\$ – Amarov Dec 27 '20 at 2:08
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Amarov I agree, recalculation definitely seems like it should be considered differently than actual reduction, hence my ruling. \$\endgroup\$ – Thomas Markov Dec 27 '20 at 2:10
-3
\$\begingroup\$

The use of the word "reduces" in the example text of recalculating hit points (see Thomas Markov's answer) is unfortunate. I believe, but don't currently have rulings to support, that the ability only prevents loss of maximum hit points to effects that directly reduce that maximum, like the abilities of many life-draining undead, and that changes to Constitution still recalculate your hp normally - that isn't really a max hp reduction so much as a "correction", or even "losing a bonus".

I don't expect to find any rules worded to back up my interpretation, though I'm going to look through what I have available anyway.

\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.