Cure Minor on self when disabled

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

Why?

I get a Standard Action and a Move Action every round.

When I'm disabled, I can take one or the other.

If I cast CMW, it's a standard action and, not only am I not disabled any more, I never was (by your reading).

Why, then, do I not get my remaining Move Action?

Because it took six seconds to cast the spell.

I'm not saying that you literally never were disabled, only that at the completion of the healing act, it is now as if you never were.

In your disabled state it took you six seconds to cast a spell. While you were casting it, you were slow and laborious. But now that you are done, when we decide whether or not to apply the hp loss (after the act), it is as if you never had been disabled.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But now that you are done, when we decide whether or not to apply the hp loss (after the act), it is as if you never had been disabled.

But that's not when you decide.

You decide to apply the hit point loss when he takes a standard action while disabled. That's when the decision is made.

The application occurs after the action, but the decision is over with by then.

-Hyp.

 

[RuminDange]

But that's not when you decide.

You decide to apply the hit point loss when he takes a standard action while disabled. That's when the decision is made.

The application occurs after the action, but the decision is over with by then.

-Hyp.

Unless the standard action you took was to increase your hit points in which case you do no lose a hit point for the standard action since you have done something that falls into the exception clause of the paragraph.

RD

 

[Hypersmurf]

RuminDange and KarinsDad, please take a deep breath or two before each post. Snippiness is Frowned Upon.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[Hypersmurf]

Unless the standard action you took was to increase your hit points in which case you do no lose a hit point for the standard action since you have done something that falls into the exception clause of the paragraph.

Well, as people have repeatedly pointed out, what the exception clause states is that you are at -1 and dying, unless the action increased your hit points.

"At 0 and disabled" is not "at -1 and dying", since the action increased your hit points.

-Hyp.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Unless the standard action you took was to increase your hit points in which case you do no lose a hit point for the standard action since you have done something that falls into the exception clause of the paragraph.

You keep saying that, but that's not what the rules say.

KarinsDad has said this before, and I'll repeat it.

The EXCEPTION CLAUSE says that if you didn't perform an action that increased your hit points, you're now in the negatives and dying.

Do you agree?

Having a hit point total of 0 is not in the negatives and dying, and neither is having a hit point total of 1.

Therefore, the exception clause does not apply.

There are two possibilities when the cleric casts CMW. Either, at the end of his turn, he has 1 hit point and is fine, or he has 0 hit points and is still Disabled.

Neither of these cases is:

in negative hit points and dying

Do you see this?

 

[KarinsDad]

If you started the round with 0 hit points and if your activity was use to increase your hit points with CMW, you would therefore end the round with 1 hit point due to the exception being met. Again, you would not lose a hit point for the activity due to the exception being met. Therefore both interpretations cannot be true unless you have a different meaning of "Unless". You cannot take the paragraph and apply each sentence one at a time when you desire to determine the final outcome. You also have to take each sentence in relation to other and apply them together.

I hate to be the one breaking the news to you, but you are not making any sense at all here.

Did you actually read what you wrote here?

I can use your first sentence and write it:

If you started the round with 0 hit points and if your activity was use to increase your hit points with CMW, you would therefore end the round with 0 hit points due to the exception being met.

In other words, you gained a hit point, met the exception clause and are NOT at -1 hit points, and then still lost the hit point for the other rule.

In both interpretations, the exception IS met.

In both interpretations, you are not at -1 hit points.


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

If you do an activity that does not increase your hit points, you are at -1. Increasing your hit points by 1 using CMW STILL increases your hit points (if only temporarily in the one interpretation), HENCE THIS SENTENCE IS NOT APPLICABLE.

I'm not sure how else to spell it out. This sentence does not affect in any way, shape, or form get you to -1 hit points with either interpretation, hence, the exception clause fires off in both interpretations (i.e. you cast CMW in both interpretations).

This sentence is totally irrelevant to the discussion and you have yet to illustrate that it is.

You may think you have, but quite frankly, I cannot understand what the heck you are talking about. No offense, but you are not making any sense here.


The only possible thing that I can think you are trying to say is that if you start at zero hit points and end at zero hit points, you did not increase your hit points and hence it disagrees with the "you are dying". Although this is true, it is not relevent because you DID increase your hit points in both interpretations, it was merely temporary in one interpretation and does not disagree with the sentence. Any time you cast CMW, you increase your hit points. Since you increase your hit points with the action, oh well, the UNLESS clause comes into effect every single time BECAUSE you cast CMW.

Are you claiming that CMW does not increase your hit points by one in both interpretations (abet temporarily in one interpretation)?

Btw, the phrase "you increase your hit points with the action" is critically important here due to the definition of disabled in the PHB:

"Unless the action increased the disabled character's hit points, she is now in negative hit points and dying."

 

[RuminDange]

Well, as people have repeatedly pointed out, what the exception clause states is that you are at -1 and dying, unless the action increased your hit points.

"At 0 and disabled" is not "at -1 and dying", since the action increased your hit points.

-Hyp.

Granted 0 and disabled is not -1 and dying but the part in the paragraph she is now in negative hit points and dying or you are now at –1 hit points, and you're dying. whichever version of the paragraph you wish to use, that is a clarification on the fact that you lost a hit point since your action didn't increase your hit points. If your action increase your hit points you would not lose a hit point.

Taking move actions doesn’t risk further injury, but performing any standard action (...) deals 1 point of damage after the completion of the act. Unless the action increased the disabled character’s hit points

Sentence works without unneeded clarification on the end that is there to stress the fact that you lose a hit point otherwise.

...
Do you agree?
...
Do you see this?

Can't say I agree since that part is simple clarification not part of the exception clause itself.
I see the fact that neither case is "negative and dying", but that is for clarification if the exception clause is not met, not the exception clause itself.


RD

 

[Gruns]

KarinsDad: You are completely missing RuminDange's (and my original) point. The reason it isn't making sense to you is because it seems as if you're focusing on the wrong part of the quote/unqote "exception clause". What he and I believe is that any act you perform while disabled deals 1 damage to you. Unless that act is any action that heals you. In this case, you dont take the 1 point. (Thus the spell Heal leaves you at full hit points, a Cure Minor leaves you with 1, drinking a Potion of Cure Light for 6 leaves you at 6, etc...)
The reason we (OK, I won't presume to speak for anyone else) - I - feel this way, is because the sentence following the 'take 1 damage' line is utterly useless if it didn't point out that healing actions were an exception to the rule. They don't need to tell me that if I'm at 0 and take 1 damage I will then be at -1 damage. Pointless. Redundant. Useless. You don't put reminder text for a rule in the very next line after the rule was originally stated.

No matter how this turns up "officially", in my games, healing is the lone exception to the 1 point of damage rule. And if I'm *cough* "officially" wrong, then I'll make up for my mistake with roleplaying... "Ah! The Gods must be smiling on you tonight! That was an exceptionally potent casting of Cure Minor whilst you were on death's doorstep. You are now at 1!"

Later,
Gruns

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

In other words, RD, you're more than happy to play around with the rules of the English language to twist the text to mean what you want it to.

Fine, do so, but don't presume that it's somehow correct.

Taking move actions doesn't risk further injury, but performing any standard action (or any other action the DM deems stenuous, including some free actions such as casting a quickened spell) deals 1 point of damage after the completion of the act. Unless the action increased the disabled character's hit points, she is now in negative hit points and dying.

--AND--

Taking move actions doesn't risk further injury, but performing any standard action (or any other action the DM deems stenuous, including some free actions such as casting a quickened spell) deals 1 point of damage after the completion of the act unless the action increased the disabled character's hit points. Otherwise, she is now in negative hit points and dying.

are not equivalent statements. They may not be interchanged.

Therefore, by grouping the sentences as you have decided to do, you are changing that which is written.