Cure Minor on self when disabled

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Healing is clearly flagged to me as an exception for this rule because of the “Unless …” clause.

Except, of course, that you have to twist English to get it to work that way.

 

[RuminDange]

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)?

In your opinion useless and therefore ignored by you, but an exception to me. One that works in the benefit of players if they are ever in that situation. Which at least one of mine have been in at least once over the last 4 almost 5 years of my ongoing campaign.

RD

 

[RuminDange]

Except, of course, that you have to twist English to get it to work that way.

Teaching without a license again?
Twisted by me in your opinion. You are ignoring the english language in mine.

RD

 

[KarinsDad]

In your opinion useless and therefore ignored by you, but an exception to me. One that works in the benefit of players if they are ever in that situation. Which at least one of mine have been in at least once over the last 4 almost 5 years of my ongoing campaign.

That sentence says one and only one thing. If your action did not heal you, you are dying.

Period.

Most of the rest of us here think that if the designers did not want you to take that one point of damage if you healed yourself, they would have stated it. We respect their talents enough to understand that if they had wanted to say that it overrides the earlier one point of damage rule, they would have explicitly done so. They would not have made their point in such an obscure manner where many intelligent people here on the boards view it as not even relevant to the conversation.

They did not state that it reverses the earlier rule. If they had wanted to say that, they would have spelled it out.

The "unless" clause doesn't explicitly talk about the extra point of damage issue at all, this is merely an extrapolation that you have made.

It talks about dying if your action did not heal you.

No more. No less.

 

[RuminDange]

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.

I agree there are some people that I consider "rules experts" here, that is one of the reason I enjoy this site so much as the different views you can get on something that helps you think critically about a rule you have a question about or possibility a disagreement about between players. I normally agree with Hypersmurf, Diaglo, Piratecat and many others. But there are times when they are wrong, miss something, or just don't agree with their view about it. I don't just change my mind based on a few people's opinion just because they are normally right, I use my own judgment as well. I not working towards a Master degree to be hand held and feed other peoples opinion as gospel.
As far as playing 3E D&D, that is something I have been doing since it came out, non-stop every week sometimes twice a week depending on schedule, always the DM. As far as carry over from older editions, I started with 1st edition 20 years ago, went through the 2nd edition nightmare, took a break and started back about a year before 3E came out. We switched to 3E as soon as we got the first bit of info to do so. I do not consider myself a "rules expert" since my interpretations are not official, but I do consider myself "rules strong".
I voice my opinion or interpretation about a rule and will debate the issue, but I try not to force my side down others throats. Agree or disagree, prove me wrong and I will switch my view. But when others misquote me, call into question my education, or attempt to force feed me their view without proof it gets difficult to truly debate the actual thing being debated.

All I say is what I have said before, until an official answer is given exactly how this rule is used when healing is the standard action, no matter the source of the healing, this debate will continue to go back and forth. Until then use your opinion in your game and I will use my opinion in my game.

RD

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

...use your opinion in your game and I will use my opinion in my game.

RD

Wise words.

 

[Mark]

DISABLED (0 HIT POINTS)

When your current hit points drop to exactly 0, you’re disabled. 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.

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.

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).

Cure Minor Wounds? IMO; Naysayers 0, hp1.

 

[IcyCool]

Teaching without a license again?
Twisted by me in your opinion. You are ignoring the english language in mine.

RD

So would you still argue your point if the last sentance was written:

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

I'm simply curious, because from a grammatical perspective, Patryn is correct. I happen to think that a disabled character who casts a healing spell on himself should not cause the 1 damage to be inflicted. That's not what is written, so I houserule it. It seems to me that you are arguing the "Spirit of the Rules" and Patryn and KarinsDad are arguing the "Letter of the Rules".

 

[Gruns]

Most of the rest of us here think that if the designers did not want you to take that one point of damage if you healed yourself, they would have stated it.

They did state it. "Unless that action increased your hit points..."

If the designers DID want you to take that one point of damage, even if you healed yourself, they would have completely left the healing part of the last line out of it.

"...but if you perform any standard action you take 1 point of damage after the completing the act. You are now at -1 hit points, and you’re dying."
That line is perfectly clear that any standard action you take, even a healing action, is going to result in 1 damage. But as we know, they didnt say that.

---
(If the rule actually was that ANY action you take results in damage
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: "What difference does that make?"
Designer 2: "Well, they wouldn't be in negatives anymore."
Designer 1: "Riiight... But this isn't any different than any other situation where healing is involved, so no need to mention it. Space is at a premium here. Stop wasting our time with frivolous information. You're fired."
---
(Since healing is an exception to the rule
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: "Don't forget that we decided that healing was an exception."
Designer 1: "Oh yeah. We'll add an exception clause."
'Unless the action increased the disabled character's hit points, she is now in negative hit points and dying.'
Designer 2: "Quick, easy, and to the point. Perfect."
---
I feel sorry for the original poster for having to listen to all the wrong answers when I clearly gave the right answer oh so many posts ago. /sarcasm off

Later!
Gruns

 

[RuminDange]

So would you still argue your point if the last sentance was written:

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

I'm simply curious, because from a grammatical perspective, Patryn is correct. I happen to think that a disabled character who casts a healing spell on himself should not cause the 1 damage to be inflicted. That's not what is written, so I houserule it. It seems to me that you are arguing the "Spirit of the Rules" and Patryn and KarinsDad are arguing the "Letter of the Rules".

I'd have to say even the way you have rewritten the sentence I would still say there is an exception to the rule when your standard action increases your hit points, even more so with your version. That is how it reads to me. No different than if you had written: 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, you are now at –1 hit points, and you’re dying.
It is not "spirit of the rules" or "letter of the rules" to me; it is how the paragraph is written and reads. When you use a term that means "Except on the condition that" or "Except under the circumstances that", you are calling attention to an exception to what was just said/written or about to be said/written. Grammaticality it is a sentence that modifies the previous and clarifies otherwise it is not required no matter what level of rules knowledge or strength you have under your belt.


RD