Demons and Machines at HP 0

[arnej]

My aged brain seemed to think that demons and/or machines died when they reached HP 0. Talking with my GM last night, and he could not recall anything like this.

Is or was this a thing?

[Kelly Pedersen]

Well, some demons or other supernatural types have the Fragile (Unnatural) disadvantage, which causes them to die automatically when they reach -1XHP (i.e., they automatically fail their first death check). I believe in 3e, that actually kicked in as soon as you went below 0 HP instead. That may be what you're thinking of?

As for vehicles, though, I don't know where you would have got that from. In 4e, Fragile (Unnatural) is certainly not a common trait for them, and I don't believe it applied in 3e either.

[Anaraxes]

Per B483, objects (including machines) start making HT rolls to avoid becoming disabled (not functional at all) at 0 HP. They start making HT rolls to avoid being "destroyed" at -1x HP. At -5x HP, they're automatically destroyed. So, roughly analogous to living creatures, and tougher than Fragile.

I suppose some vehicles might be Fragile (Combustible / Explosive / Flammable). Oh, the inhumanity!

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by arnej

Is or was this a thing?

It was in 3rd edition.

[Prince Charon]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

I suppose some vehicles might be Fragile (Combustible / Explosive / Flammable). Oh, the inhumanity!

That would be the Ford Pinto, so infamous that it's a meme (though apparently the memo wasn't quite what it's reputed to be; still pretty cold, though).

Also the Hindenberg, but the Pinto should not be forgotten.

[Flyndaran]

The Pinto was a bad design, but its danger was outright lied about including that famous doctored with explosives "news" program demonstration.
The Hindenburg burned due to flammable paint, not the actual dirigible's design. Most passengers survived after all.

No one's going to design expensive machines that catastrophically fail when damaged unless absolutely unavoidable.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

The Pinto was a bad design, but its danger was outright lied about including that famous doctored with explosives "news" program demonstration.

The Pinto's demonstration was "genuine" in the sense that the cars had no modifications, but the tests were set up in an absolutely worst case scenario (gas cap loose, hit exactly where it was most likely to result in an explosion, etc.).

It was Dateline NBC's coverage of GM pickups in the 90s that used incendiary devices to enhance the truth.

[Flyndaran]

Was it? Poo, I hate when my memory gets more muddled than usual.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

The Hindenburg burned due to flammable paint, not the actual dirigible's design.

Dope isn't some sort of decorative "paint", the dope used is part of the actual dirigible's design. The dope performs the vitally required function of reflecting heat to prevent spontaneous combustion (or just over-expansion and unexpected changes in volume, leading to leaks and wacky balance).

The thermite dope theory was debunked, it was based on the very flawed idea that three elements in any ratio and arrangement make for the same substance.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Bruno

The thermite dope theory was debunked, it was based on the very flawed idea that three elements in any ratio and arrangement make for the same substance.

Which doesn't mean the structure didn't burn, of course. It was certainly flammable, whether or not it was the actual cause of the fire.