Cure Minor on self when disabled

[Mark]

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.

Yup. No sense even writing anything about healing into that section of the rules if you had to take the point of damage no matter what. In fact, they could have simply wrote...

"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...NO MATTER WHAT."

...and left off all of the additional...

"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."

There's simply no point in bringing it up if it is irrelevant to the issue.

 

[KarinsDad]

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

Now you are making stuff up.

They did NOT explictly state that the "takes one point of damage rule" is not applicable if your hit points increased. If they had explicitly stated that, we would not be having this discussion.

The designers did NOT explicitly state: "If your action while disabled heals you, you do not take a point of damage for being disabled and performing a strenuous action."

The "unless" clause in no way, shape, or form explictly discusses the previous rule. In fact, it does not EVEN state what happens if your action healed you in any way.

It ONLY states what happens if your action DID NOT heal you.

Taking the inverse of the statement to prove something it does not state is an invalid interpretation technique.


For your interpretation to have ANY validity, the following statement MUST state what it does IF your activity DID increase your hit points.

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

Where does it state what happens IF your activity DID increase your hit points?

It ONLY states what happens if your activity did NOT increase your hit points. That is the flaw in your (and RDs and others) logic. You cannot point to where this statement indicates what happens if your activity heals you. You can only point to where this statement indicates what happens if your activity does not heal you.


"Unless it is Monday, you are happy."

does not in any way, shape, or form tell you your state of being ON MONDAY. You might be happy on Monday, you might not. This does not preclude you from being happy on Monday, it just indicates that you WILL definitely be happy on Tuesday through Sunday.


I cannot even understand why this is so difficult to understand, but this is precisely why other people are stating that some people are twisting the words and being stubborn. The reason is that the people who think the "unless" statement has ANY bearing on the "do you take a hit point or not when healing yourself" discussion whatsoever are not using basic logic.

 

[IcyCool]

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 different.

This:

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.

Is NOT grammatically equivalent to this:

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's an incredibly subtle difference, so it's easy to confuse one for the other. As KarinsDad pointed out, you are also logically incorrect.

The Rules As Written (RAW), state that you take 1 hitpoint of damage after completion of a standard action when disabled. No amount of arguement will change that. Is it what the designers intended? Does it make sense? Well, these aren't questions for the Rules forum.

 

[RuminDange]

Now you are making stuff up.

I cannot even understand why this is so difficult to understand, but this is precisely why other people are stating that some people are twisting the words and being stubborn. The reason is that the people who think the "unless" statement has ANY bearing on the "do you take a hit point or not when healing yourself" discussion whatsoever are not using basic logic.

So now it is our basic logic that is flawed... :\
Reaching. No proof.

As a programmer using this paragraph to write a use case and later a function for a program, the logic of it would indicate an exception.
Such as:
if hitpoint <=0 and action = move then EndRound
else
if action = standard and hitpoint > 0 then EndRound
else
hitpoint = hitpoint - 1
end if


RD

 

[RuminDange]

It is different.

This:



Is NOT grammatically equivalent to this:

Yes they different in a subtle way. They are not grammatically equivalent I agree, as does a grammer checker. As the way I rewote is actually higher level and easier to read and understand than the orginal.

It's an incredibly subtle difference, so it's easy to confuse one for the other. As KarinsDad pointed out, you are also logically incorrect.

The Rules As Written (RAW), state that you take 1 hitpoint of damage after completion of a standard action when disabled. No amount of arguement will change that. Is it what the designers intended? Does it make sense? Well, these aren't questions for the Rules forum.

So you can read the designer's mind?
We have no official ruling other than all of our opinions in this debate.
And this is the rules forum where this kind of questions are best asked.
Also by RAW you take the 1 point of damage unless your action was increasing your hit points. Continue debate and arguments below.

RD

 

[IcyCool]

So now it is our basic logic that is flawed...
Reaching. No proof.

This is Basic Logic. No proof required. Just as 1+1 = 2 doesn't require any proof (ok, there is a proof, but you get the idea I hope). Did you read KarinsDad's example? Do you disagree with it?

As a programmer using this paragraph to write a use case and later a function for a program, the logic of it would indicate an exception.
Such as:
if hitpoint <=0 and action = move then EndRound
else
if action = standard and hitpoint > 0 then EndRound
else
hitpoint = hitpoint - 1
end if

As a programmer, were you not required to take a Logic class? Did you not use Logic constantly in algorithm design? I know I did. Oh, and your pseudo-code is incorrect. It should read (assuming you are simply referring to the section we are discussing):

if hitpoint = 0 and action = move then EndRound
else
if hitpoint > 0 and action = standard then EndRound
else
hitpoint = hitpoint - 1
end if

A simple difference, but an important difference. And if you were to use either your pseudo-code, or mine, you would get a result in-line with what KarinsDad has been arguing.

Yes they different in a subtle way. They are not grammatically equivalent I agree, as does a grammer checker. As the way I rewote is actually higher level and easier to read and understand than the orginal.

You change it's meaning when you write it your way. Hence the arguements that you are twisting the English language. It is apparently your opinion that you are not changing the meaning. No amount of proof will convince you otherwise, so I've said my piece.

So you can read the designer's mind?

No more than you can.

We have no official ruling other than all of our opinions in this debate.

We have the RAW.

And this is the rules forum where this kind of questions are best asked.

Fair enough, but most folks stop asking once the question is answered.

Also by RAW you take the 1 point of damage unless your action was increasing your hit points.

Could you please point out where it states that in the RAW? Explicitly?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Let's face it, folks, RD ain't gonna admit that he's rewriting and changing the meaning of the text.

It's been explained many, many times. He doesn't get it now, he won't get it in the future.

 

[threshel]

I'll say this: Karin's got a smart Dad. Well put.
I hope everyone enjoys their games no matter how I play mine. Unless you're one of my players.
Then I make sure you enjoy.
Ta.

J

 

[Gruns]

Now you are making stuff up.

Nothing I said has been made up. In fact I quoted exactly where it was stated. Just because you see it differently, doesn't mean I'm 'making stuff up'. You're getting a little too offensive here.

They did NOT explictly state that the "takes one point of damage rule" is not applicable if your hit points increased. If they had explicitly stated that, we would not be having this discussion.

I never said it was EXPLICITLY stated. In fact, in my sample designer's conversation, I said they stated it in a succinct, concise manner.

The designers did NOT explicitly state: "If your action while disabled heals you, you do not take a point of damage for being disabled and performing a strenuous action."

The "unless" clause in no way, shape, or form explictly discusses the previous rule. In fact, it does not EVEN state what happens if your action healed you in any way.

Again, no one is claiming that this is explicit. It's clearly not explicit.

It ONLY states what happens if your action DID NOT heal you.

Taking the inverse of the statement to prove something it does not state is an invalid interpretation technique.

Here's where you're mistaken. I am not using the inverse to prove something. I am using the entire paragraph, nay- the entire book to use what is implied. (Yes, I know. You think they imply something else.)

For your interpretation to have ANY validity, the following statement MUST state what it does IF your activity DID increase your hit points.
"Unless your activity increased your hit points, you are now at –1 hit points, and you’re dying."

Well, I'm not sure what the rule is for establishing validity (Quick- someone start a new thread and ask one of the 3 guys that know everything!) but my interpretation has plenty of validity! Otherwise, there's no debate at all. In fact, there is no reason for the designers to state what happens if an action increases my hit points, since that is a fairly simple thing, and covered earlier in the rulebook. Which coincidently, goes on to further strengthen my argument that since there is mention of an act of healing here, it must be something out of the norm.

Where does it state what happens IF your activity DID increase your hit points?
It ONLY states what happens if your activity did NOT increase your hit points. That is the flaw in your (and RDs and others) logic. You cannot point to where this statement indicates what happens if your activity heals you. You can only point to where this statement indicates what happens if your activity does not heal you.

No, it does NOT state what happens if your activity did NOT increase your hit points. Where does it explicitly(sic) say anything about not increasing hit points? You seem to be twisting words and being stubborn...
---

"Unless it is Monday, you are happy."

does not in any way, shape, or form tell you your state of being ON MONDAY. You might be happy on Monday, you might not. This does not preclude you from being happy on Monday, it just indicates that you WILL definitely be happy on Tuesday through Sunday.

Uh oh... The way I see things, your statement means that on Monday, you are definately NOT happy. I agree with the Tuesday through Sunday part- You ARE happy. I'm sure others will point out this logic flaw to you quicker than I can finish this reply though.

I cannot even understand why this is so difficult to understand, but this is precisely why other people are stating that some people are twisting the words and being stubborn. The reason is that the people who think the "unless" statement has ANY bearing on the "do you take a hit point or not when healing yourself" discussion whatsoever are not using basic logic.

I cannot even understand why this is so difficult to understand, but this is precisely why other people are stating that some people are twisting the words and being stubborn. The reason is that the people who think the "unless" statement DOES NOT have any bearing on the "do you take a hit point or not when healing yourself" discussion whatsoever are not using basic logic.

Later,
Gruns

 

[KarinsDad]

So now it is our basic logic that is flawed... :\

Yes. It has been ever since you brought up the "unless" statement.

Unless you can explain how the following sentence gives any information about Monday, your argument is useless.

"Unless it is Monday, you are happy."

does not in any way, shape, or form tell you your state of being ON MONDAY or anything else about Monday. You might be happy on Monday, you might not. This does not preclude you from being happy on Monday, it just indicates that you WILL definitely be happy on Tuesday through Sunday.


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

does not in any way, shape, or form tell you ANYTHING about actions that increase hit points, it merely includes actions which do not increase hit points. This does not preclude the rule about dropping a hit point from doing so, it just indicates that you WILL definitely be in negative hit points and dying if the action itself did not increase your hit points (via temporary hit points, via healing, whatever). Note: I purposely used the definition of Disabled from the PHB here because it does not state you will be at -1 and is all inclusive of if you were disabled and at -5, not just disabled at 0.


I still think your confusion comes in from you assuming that the action is not increasing your hit points if your final total is 0 instead of 1. The action STILL increases your hit points, but at the same time, the strenuous rule decreases your hit points. That does not mean that the CMW did NOT actually heal you. It did. There is a difference between the action itself (CMW) and the final result due to other rules (0 hit points).


Btw, I keep waiting for you to give us information about Monday in the sentence above, just like you are clairvoyantly able to give us information about how healing works in the "unless" clause.

Unless is an exclusion. It tells us NOTHING about what it excludes, only the phrase after it which is the inclusion portion. Basic logic and coding techniques. As a programmer, you should understand that, but so far, you do not appear to understand this basic logic.