Cure Minor on self when disabled

[Hypersmurf]

Suggested it maybe, that I can accept, stated it, I did not. They are not the same thing when quoting someone.

Fair point - I did miss the attribution block.

-Hyp.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Suggested it maybe, that I can accept, stated it, I did not. They are not the same thing when quoting someone.

RD

I've gone ahead and edited my post. It now says, "RD's Interpretation."

Better?

EDIT:

Ba-dum-ching, Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Patryn - regardless of temptation, easy on the Patryn-ising, okay?

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[RuminDange]

In English, we have a word for "stand alone statements." It's "sentences."

I was going to respond to the smart ass remark such as this with something equally smart ass but decided it is not worth it.

RD

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

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.

Fair enough.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I was going to respond to the smart ass remark such as this with something equally smart ass but decided it is not worth it.

It's not meant to be smart ass. It's meant to be educational.

It's meant to point out to you that, if the author of the sentences in question had meant them to explain a single chain of cause and event, he could have made them into a single sentence.

They are not a single sentence. They are separate sentences. They are separate ideas and stand on their own.

By conflating the two of them - as your interpretation requires - you change them. It's unavoidable.

Therefore, you are ignoring the rules of the English language when you do this.

EDIT: See, once again, Hyp's excellent example above.

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

What if the PC cast a wish or miracle to not lose the hp? Could that interrupt the hp loss? If the decision is made before the action, that would seem to suggest not.

This is fun!

 

[dvvega]

Actually by grouping sentences "as they should be done" you are changing the meanign and intent of the original text.

One thing I've learnt about reading through the d20 rules (SRD and otherwise) is that the writers went to extreme lengths to ensure it read like an instruction manual or recipe.

You must leave text in its original form to interpret it "to the intent" of the writer. You cannot remove whitespace, arrange sentences or even group them "as they should be done".

I will be quoting Disabled from the combat section following, breaking it up by whitespace.

Disabled (0 Hit Points)
When your current hit points drop to exactly 0, you’re disabled.
<WHITESPACE>

Okay so when my hit points are exactly 0 I am disabled. No arguments there. Understood.

<after WHITESPACE>
You can only take a single move or standard action each turn (but not both, nor can you take full-round actions). You can take move actions without further injuring yourself, but if you perform any standard action (or any other strenuous action) you take 1 point of damage after the completing the act. Unless your activity increased your hit points, you are now at -1 hit points, and you’re dying.
<WHITESPACE>

3 sentences in there. The are all relevant and should be taken together. Lets see what each says and combine.

1. You can only take a single move or standard action.
2. Move actions don't damage but standard actions cause 1 hp damage after you complete them.
3. Unless you had hp added you are at -1 and dying.

Taking these 3 sentences together you can see that #1 gives you the two options you may take, #2 tells you what may happen depending on the options, #3 indicates that if you took any option that didn't give you hps you will be at -1 and dying.

It is very clear that no matter how many hps you added, you would never be dying because even the addition of a single hp would give you 1 hp to lose and become disabled again.

<after WHITESPACE>
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.
<WHITESPACE>

This is a seperate statement and indicates that if you can get yourself above 0 hit points after the action then you are fully functional. It is an indication that the Disabled condition is no longer in effect if you can get to positive hit points. It does not say in any way that the condition is retroactively removed.

<after WHITESPACE>
You can also become disabled when recovering from dying. In this case, it’s a step toward recovery, and you can have fewer than 0 hit points (see Stable Characters and Recovery, below).

Further indicator of how you can become disabled.


Now let us look at the definition of disabled.

Disabled
A character with 0 hit points, or one who has negative hit points but has become stable and conscious, is disabled. A disabled character may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can she take full-round actions). She moves at half speed. Taking move actions doesn’t risk further injury, but performing any standard action (or any other action the DM deems strenuous, 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.
<WHITESPACE>

This group of sentences has 5.

#1 indicates what the condition is.
#2 are the limitations of the condition
#3 further limitation (moves at half speed)
#4 indicates the risk with standard actions (some DM control information)
#5 unless you somehow got hitpoints you will be dying

<after WHITESPACE>
A disabled character with negative hit points recovers hit points naturally if she is being helped. Otherwise, each day she has a 10% chance to start recovering hit points naturally (starting with that day); otherwise, she loses 1 hit point. Once an unaided character starts recovering hit points naturally, she is no longer in danger of losing hit points (even if her current hit points are negative).

Here we have information on recovery which isn't pertinent to our situation here.

No where in the definition of Disabled do you see any mention of the condition being removed after healing, retroactively or otherwise.

The extra sentence (after whitespace) that the "side of retroactive disable removal" keep trying to refer to is not part of the disabled definition. It is only found in the combat section of the SRD because it refers to continuing to act and battle not to the disabled condition itself.

<after WHITESPACE>
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.
<WHITESPACE>

Simply informs you that if you can do it, if you can get above 0 hit points, you will be fully functional and ready to act.


D

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

What if the PC cast a wish or miracle to not lose the hp? Could that interrupt the hp loss? If the decision is made before the action, that would seem to suggest not.

Probably, but that's only because of the special powers of Wish or Miracle.

A far better use for those spells would have been creating a healing effect.

 

[RuminDange]

Huh?

"If you pay a hundred dollars, you get a room for the night. Unless you pay an extra ten dollars, breakfast is not included."

Does this mean that if I do pay an extra ten dollars, I don't get a room for the night?

After all, I could read this: "If you pay a hundred dollars, you get a room for the night. Unless you pay an extra ten dollars." Since the "Breakfast is not included" stands by itself.

... right?

-Hyp.

In this case, using the sentence you written here as is, there is no mention of getting a room for the night without breakfast so removing the clarification off the exception does not work to convey the same way.

Now if you had written: "You get a room for the night without breakfast, if you pay one hundred dollarss. Unless you pay n extra ten dollars, breakfast is not included."
Then the clarification is not needed.

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, she is now in negative hit points and dying.

If I take a move action I take no damage while disabled. Right?
But if I perform a standard action that does not increase my hit points it deals 1 point of damage. Right?
So why then the exception of "Unless the action increased the disabled character's hit points"? I still don't see the reason for the exception if healing of any kind did not remove the loss of a hit point at the end. What is the point of adding it if it didn't indicate healing was an exception when performing a standard action while disabled?

RD