Cure Minor on self when disabled

[shilsen]

We've been having a small dispute in my group about the effects of someone on 0 hp casting Cure Minor on himself. I claimed that the action of casting the spell would cause 1 hp damage (per PHB pg.145) and since the spell cures 1 hp, the character would remain at 0 hp.

Another player thinks that since the spell moves the character from 0 to 1 hp, he doesn't take the damage for acting while disabled. His argument is on the basis that since the damage for acting while disabled occurs "after the completing the act" (yes, the typo is in the PHB), the 1 hp of healing kicks in first and he's no longer disabled at the end of the act, so the 1 pt damage for actign while disabled doesn't occur.

Opinions?

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I'd say the rule from the PHB pretty much sums it up. If the damage would occur AFTER the act, then by bringing himself to 1hp WITH the act he's instantly out of "Disabled" and no longer in danger of reducing himself to 0hp.

It's actions like this that they created that caveat for, I'd say ... so that Clerics can toss a healing down on themselves without dropping or negating that healing. (Or a fighter can drink a potion, rogue can try to use a CLW wand on himself {I've done that before ... }, etc.)

--fje

 

[CM]

I agree with Shilsen. If you take a standard action while disabled, regardless of what specific action you take, you lose 1 HP after the action is completed. A cure minor wounds brings you to 1 HP, but then you lose 1 HP again for having taken a standard action while disabled.

It makes sense to me--the spell is only powerful enough to heal the injuries you suffer in the process of casting it. It's best use is to prevent others from dying, imo.

 

[Thanee]

...but if you perform any standard action you take 1 point of damage after completing the act.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Darkness]

I recommend Quickened cure minor wounds.

But only if he has no 1st-4th level cure spells.

 

[Thanee]

Heh.

Or an empowered Cure Minor Wounds (not a Standard Action).



Bye
Thanee

 

[Kershek]

Can't do an empowered cure minor wounds... wouldn't that be a full round action? At 0 hp you can only go up to standard action before you pass out.

 

[Sithobi1]

I recommend Quickened cure minor wounds.

But only if he has no 1st-4th level cure spells.

It also says something like "or any other strenuous action, like casting a quickened spell."

Or an empowered Cure Minor Wounds (not a Standard Action).

Isn't that just 1*1.5=1.5 round down to 1?

 

[Thanee]

Can't do an empowered cure minor wounds... wouldn't that be a full round action? At 0 hp you can only go up to standard action before you pass out.

Ah, right. Well, even if you could, I suppose it would count as strenuous activity, anyways.

And yes, of course it's totally pointless to empower Cure Minor Wounds (it was not really meant as a serious reply ).

Also the quickened spell... Cure Critical Wounds is a wee bit better, I think.

Bye
Thanee

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

But you're no longer disabled after you've been healed one HP. Which happens before the spell is over because it happens instantly simultaneously with the casting of the spell. Before the "after" comes into effect the "instantaneous" has raised your HP above 0 and you're no longer Disabled as if you were never Disabled.

Personally I'd like to see a Sage ruling or something from WotC because it can go both ways, depending on how you want to rule "Instantaneous", the part about rising above 0hp, and whether or not Conditions remain to the end of an action that changes Conditions.

Some SRD quotes:

Healing that raises your hit points above 0 makes you fully functional again, just as if you’d never been reduced to 0 or fewer hit points.

Unless your activity increased your hit points, you are now at –1 hit points, and you’re dying.

(Emphasis mine)

Instantaneous: The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast...