Cure Minor on self when disabled

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

The simple reason that "retroactive" statement is in there is for the condition that someone else heals you.

I think that's reading too much into it. After all, the SRD says, "Unless your activity increased your hit points..." [emphasis mine]. I think the language indicates that these rules are meant to apply to self-healing, too.

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

Designer 1: "Okay, so we've got 'Performing any standard action deals 1 point of damage after the completion of the act. The character is now in negative hit points and dying.'"
Designer 2: "Well, what if the standard action was, say, casting a cure spell? Or drinking a cure potion?"
Designer 1: "Fine. 'Unless the action increased the disabled character's hit points, she is now in negative hit points and dying.' Happy?"
Designer 2: "Sounds good to me."

-Hyp.

This hypothetical conversation is certainly consistent with the final written rules, but so is the following:

Designer 1: "Okay, so we've got 'Performing any standard action deals 1 point of damage after the completion of the act. The character is now in negative hit points and dying.'"
Designer 2: "Well, what if the standard action was, say, casting a cure spell? Or drinking a cure potion?"
Designer 1: "Fine. 'Unless the action increased the disabled character's hit points, she is now in negative hit points and dying.' Happy?"
Designer 2: "Not yet, some people might still interpret that as saying that even the act of healing itself results in losing a hit point. We need to make it clear that healing is special and takes you out of this vulnerable state."
Designer 1: "You're right. Let's add the following statement, '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.'"
Designer 2: "That should do."

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

Hyp's got it right.

Most people would be content with the answers given by myself and others, but some people can't admit they're wrong. End result: a messy thread where the correct answer lies buried under a heap of conjecture, false statements and a lot of heated argument.

I feel sorry for the original poster.

A final note to the people who have responded to my post: As much as I hate not to respond: I'm sorry, but I'm not going to answer you individually. To do so would only decrease the signal to noise ratio even further. The answer was given in my very first post (and by others as well, of course) and any posts after that are, well, unnecessary.

This is offensive. I, for one, have still not decided what I think the right answer is, and am still debating this in good faith. Opposing viewpoints may be unnecessary to you, but they're not to me.

 

[MerakSpielman]

I would like to ask the "casting cure spell results in 1hp loss" crowd if they actually enforce this in their games. When people cast a healing spell from 0 hp do you actually insist they subtract 1 hp from the total healing they've rolled?

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Some people feel their answers are handed down via divine proclamation.

For some reason the rules forum tends to attract folks with intense needs to feel superior.

--fje

 

[atom crash]

Hyp's got it right.

Most people would be content with the answers given by myself and others, but some people can't admit they're wrong. End result: a messy thread where the correct answer lies buried under a heap of conjecture, false statements and a lot of heated argument.

I feel sorry for the original poster.

A final note to the people who have responded to my post: As much as I hate not to respond: I'm sorry, but I'm not going to answer you individually. To do so would only decrease the signal to noise ratio even further. The answer was given in my very first post (and by others as well, of course) and any posts after that are, well, unnecessary.

Next time I'll try to remember that as soon as Hypersmurf and CapnZapp post, all debate is over. Silly me.

 

[RuminDange]

Hyp's got it right.

Most people would be content with the answers given by myself and others, but some people can't admit they're wrong. End result: a messy thread where the correct answer lies buried under a heap of conjecture, false statements and a lot of heated argument.

I feel sorry for the original poster.

A final note to the people who have responded to my post: As much as I hate not to respond: I'm sorry, but I'm not going to answer you individually. To do so would only decrease the signal to noise ratio even further. The answer was given in my very first post (and by others as well, of course) and any posts after that are, well, unnecessary.

I and many others do not believe Hyp or yourself have this right. It is not about not being able to admit when one is wrong, because if it was I could say that you, Hyp and others are in that boat as well. If I am wrong about something than I have no problem admitting it, unless of course it cannot be proven beyond that I am wrong. In this case, it cannot be until an OFFICAL answer is given. And since none of us here on either side of the debate are official, statements like this are inflammatory and insulting.

I cannot agree with the idea that you perform a standard action that involves healing, no matter the form, you still lose a point at the end of the action. Healing is clearly flagged to me as an exception for this rule because of the “Unless …” clause.


RD

 

[KarinsDad]

Next time I'll try to remember that as soon as Hypersmurf and CapnZapp post, all debate is over. Silly me.

Actually, I am fairly knowlegeable on the rules (although I stopped playing the DND game system for a year or so and am rusty again) and can therefore be pretty stubborn on these boards (without good evidence to the contrary).

But, as soon as the three rules monkeys Hypersmurf, Patryn of Elvenshae, and Caliban all chime in on the opposite side of my position, I start figuring that I could be wrong.

So yes, there are some people who I consider "rules experts" here. Not that they cannot be wrong, but if I see agreement between the three of them, I pretty much figure that they are right. YMMV.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I would like to ask the "casting cure spell results in 1hp loss" crowd if they actually enforce this in their games. When people cast a healing spell from 0 hp do you actually insist they subtract 1 hp from the total healing they've rolled?

Absolutely.

 

[KarinsDad]

I cannot agree with the idea that you perform a standard action that involves healing, no matter the form, you still lose a point at the end of the action. Healing is clearly flagged to me as an exception for this rule because of the “Unless …” clause.

You mean the "useless" clause whose only purpose is to let people know in the disabled section that getting to -1 means that you are dying (since the disabled section is not the dying section of the rules)?