Does Healing Word require a Healing Surge? Forked Thread: Ranger beasts

[evilgenius8000]

Boolean logic: X AND Y

If not X, then not Y.

You cannot have Y without X.


Also, the "additional" implies that it is in addition to the amount gained from the healing surge, which in turn implies that you would necessarily need to be spending said healing surge.

Additional
Ad*di"tion*al\, a. Added; supplemental; in the way of an addition.

 

[Eldorian]

Boolean logic: X AND Y

If not X, then not Y.

You cannot have Y without X.


Also, the "additional" implies that it is in addition to the amount gained from the healing surge, which in turn implies that you would necessarily need to be spending said healing surge.

Additional
Ad*di"tion*al, a. Added; supplemental; in the way of an addition.

What are the sentences represented by X and Y? If those sentences are "the target can spend a healing surge" and "the target can regain an additional 1d6 hit points" then the traditional (logical) definition of "and" as meaning the intersection of two sets is still satisfied. The target is given two options, the target may chose to take only one of them. When attempting to use symbolic logic, it is necessary to explicitly state what your
variables stand for.

 

[Jhaelen]

The effect lines states that the target CAN spend a healing surge, not that they are required to. Further, it does not require that the healing surge be spent for the additional 1d6 hit points to be healed.

Sorry bud, you're wrong.
The power allows you to spend a healing surge (in addition to the you can spend using your second wind). If you do, you gain an additional 1d6 hp.

If you don't have a healing surge to spend the power does nothing for you.

 

[James McMurray]

The meaning of the word "can" or the intent of the word "and" is immaterial. The word "additional" clenches it. You cannot do "additional" anything unless you have already done that something. If you don't spend the surge, you don't gain any hit points, and thus can't gain additional hit points.

It's probably not too powerful of a house rule as long as you don't mind noncombat healing being surge free when the players have time for multiple short rests, but there's really no room to argue that it's anything other than a house rule. You can argue designer intent, but the wording leaves no holes.

 

[pemerton]

Boolean logic: X AND Y

If not X, then not Y.

You cannot have Y without X.

None of the above three is equivalent (I'm not sure if you are saying that they are, or not).

X & Y does not entail (If not X, then not Y). For example, if X is false and Y is false, then not-X is true and Y is true, and hence (If not X, then not Y) is true. But in that situation, X & Y is false (both conjuncts being false).

An example: it might be true that if there is no salt on the table there is no pepper either, but that doesn't entail that there is both salt and pepper on the table - there might be neither!

Nor does (If not X, then not Y) entail you cannot have Y without X. "Cannot" introduces modal notions that are not present in the simple indicative claim. Thus it might be true that if there is not salt on the table there is no pepper either, because the salt and pepper are both in the same serving vessel. It doesn't follow that there cannot be pepper on the table without there being salt on the table - someone might take the pepper shaker alone out of the vessel and put it on the table, it's just that they haven't.

 

[DracoSuave]

You have to have damage in order to deal additional damage. (Damage buffing effects)

You have to regain healing in order to regain additional healing.

 

[LittleFuzzy]

"The target can spend a healing surge to regain an additional 1d6 hit points" means something considerably different than "The target can spend a healing surge and regain an additional 1d6 hit points". The latter sentence lets you spend a healing surge to gain its normal benefit, and also gain 1d6 additional hit points.

Ok, but with the level of parsing people are doing in here, the first statement doesn't mean you get your surge value+1d6. It just gives you 1d6. You can spend a healing surge to do a number of things, and WoTC didn't bother to write specific notes on all of them indicating you don't get your normal healing when doing so. In this case, with the first's wording and the interpretation of additional being bandied about, it means you're spending a healing surge to just gain back the 1d6. It doesn't make sense, and no one would ever want to use it, but to me it highlights the futility of trying to unlink the surge and the hitpoints. If people want to provide healing to characters who are out of surges, they should find another way IMO.

 

[Stogoe]

If you are allowed to regain 1d6+wis from healing word without spending a surge, it means that people will not spend any surges for healing outside combat. It will take bit longer, but they heal for free if they have a leader.

Are you sure you want that ?

And, if somebody will come up with elixir which says "You can drink this potion and gain +1 to damage till end of encounter", you will also argue that you don't need to drink it to gain a benefit?

Forget the 'can', the 'and', and the 'additional', this is the real heart of the matter: Do you want to introduce infinite healing into your game?