Cure Minor on self when disabled

[IcyCool]

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.

I just noticed that this particular pseudo-code block does indeed produce the results you were looking for, RuminDange, provided one assumes that the hitpoint variable refers to your current hitpoints, and it is not applied until after you take the action. So I withdraw the comment that you get a result in-line with KarinsDad's, provided the exception I listed above applies. The code, however, incorrectly portrays the paragraph.

Perhaps the following block would be better:

if hitpoints = 0 then
    if action = standard then
        [i]do standard action[/i]
        hitpoints = hitpoints - 1
        End Round
    else
        [i]do move or free action, or do nothing[/i]
        End Round
    end if
else if hitpoints > 0 then
    [i]do action[/i]
    EndRound
else
    hitpoints = hitpoints - 1
    EndRound
end if

 

[IcyCool]

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.)

The point is, KarinsDad is arguing what is written, and you arguing what is implied. Fact versus Opinion. Fact wins. Does that mean that Fact has to make sense? No.

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.

Umm, this is, as I said before, basic logic. If you think that statement says that you are always NOT happy on Monday, you are logically incorrect. It is simply a way of writing "You are always happy from Tuesday to Sunday." If you wish to argue this point, fine. But know that it is as silly as arguing that 1+1 does not equal 2.

[Edit] Removed extra quote tag [/Edit]

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

And this is your mistake, whether you agree or not.

"Unless it is Monday, you are happy."

ONLY gives us information about Tuesday through Sunday. There CANNOT be an Unhappy Thursday for example. This sentence prevents it.

There can be an Unhappy Monday, but it does not HAVE to be an Unhappy Monday. It could be happy. The sentence tells us NOTHING about Monday.

This sentence is NOT: Except for Mondays, all days are happy.

RD has convinced people that Unless means Except, but it does not. Until you realize that Unless and Except have different meanings, you will continue to think as you do on the sentence.

IF the sentence said Except instead of Unless, there might be some validity to RD's and your position. But, the sentence does not say Except. It says Unless.


By thinking that this tells us something about Monday, you are explaining why the other "unless" clause has meaning for you.

I cannot prove to you that this is so, but it is. It is the way standard logic works. The phrase "Unless it is Monday" merely indicates the timeframe for happy, it says nothing about whether a timeframe that can be unhappy is happy or unhappy.

 

[Mark]

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

You shouldn't argue about logic. A statement's validity (or even its usefulness) is not predicated by someone's (anyone's) ability to explain it, least of all to explain it to anyone in particular, such as yourself.

You might want to reign yourself in on the absolute statements. Whether you are wrong or right, they make you look like a bully and untrustworthy. I rarely even bother to read your posts, let alone put stock in what you are trying to defend.

I think this debate needs an infusion of response email from the Sage (new or old) or perhaps from other designers at WotC, to clear it up. I know some folks would like to claim it is clear or obvious, but it's clearly obvious that a good portion of people fall on either side of the division.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

You shouldn't argue about logic. A statement's validity (or even its usefulness) is not predicated by someone's (anyone's) ability to explain it, least of all to explain it to anyone in particular, such as yourself.

Except, of course, when a statement is being twisted beyond the bouds set by the English language as support for a particular point of view.

Someone who claims that, "Unless it's Monday, everyone is happy," is support for the position that everyone is unhappy on Monday doesn't understand logic and has, at best, a tenuous grasp of the English language.

You might want to reign yourself in on the absolute statements.

And someone with a .sig that mentions "some rules are more better than others" should take careful aim before throwing any grammarian's stones.

 

[Mark]

Except, of course, when a statement...

Nope. Doesn't enter into it. A statement's validity is independent of any explaination of it. Even if you are ignorant of how a calendar works, my being able to explain the concept of Monday to you has no bearing on the validity of the concept of "Monday".

And someone with a .sig that mentions "some rules are more better than others" should take careful aim before throwing any grammarian's stones.

Humor, too, exists whether you understand it or not...

 

[KarinsDad]

I'll say this: Karin's got a smart Dad. Well put.

Thanks.

Unfortunately, I am not smart enough to get people to understand the slight but important (in this case) difference between Unless and Except.

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.

And, this is the important thing. No matter how you rule, you gotta have fun!

 

[RuminDange]

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.

Agreed it does not say anything about Monday, and that is due to the missing default condition of your emotional state prior to determining if it is Monday. An exception clause attached to no clause leaves one wondering what the exception is for in the first place.

"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.

Since you only are looking at the exception clause, then you know nothing other than the exception. That is why you must also include the previous sentence that gives you the default clause.

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.

You know I figured as much as you all like to throw around your weight and try to be the "all-knowing" ones you would understand the basic idea of "increasing your hit points". I guess you do not, so let me help you. Cast Cure Minor Wounds adds/restores/heals 1 hit point. You start at 0 you add 1, that is 0 + 1 = 1. Since 1 is greater than 0 you therefore increased your hit points. You have performed a standard that would have caused you the loss of 1 hit point if you did not increase your hit points. You did. Fact.

First my understanding of english is wrong, then the grammar, followed by twisting it around, and finally flawed logic. WHAT ATTACK IS NEXT? Ignore what you like but you cannot debate it in good faith if you attack the debater or ignore the facts before you.

Has it become a challenge or something to see who can get me to change my mind? It sure seems that way with all the attacks?

Once again get something from WOTC that states it one way or another otherwise this can continue forever.

RD

 

[RuminDange]

I just noticed that this particular pseudo-code block does indeed produce the results you were looking for, RuminDange, provided one assumes that the hitpoint variable refers to your current hitpoints, and it is not applied until after you take the action. So I withdraw the comment that you get a result in-line with KarinsDad's, provided the exception I listed above applies. The code, however, incorrectly portrays the paragraph.

Perhaps the following block would be better:

if hitpoints = 0 then
    if action = standard then
        [i]do standard action[/i]
        hitpoints = hitpoints - 1
        End Round
    else
        [i]do move or free action, or do nothing[/i]
        End Round
    end if
else if hitpoints > 0 then
    [i]do action[/i]
    EndRound
else
    hitpoints = hitpoints - 1
    EndRound
end if

Intersting pseudo code. Thanks for correcting yourself about mine.
Also intersting is the fact that you do not take in effect if the standard action you performed increased your hit points. the hitpoint variable would always be your current value. So you should have something like:

if hitpoints = 0 then
    if action = standard then
        [i]do standard action[/i]
       [i] if hitpoints = 0 then[/i]
          hitpoints = hitpoints - 1
        [i]end if[/i]
        End Round
    else
        [i]do move or free action, or do nothing[/i]
        End Round
    end if
else if hitpoints > 0 then
    [i]do action[/i]
    EndRound
end if

RD

edit: Just noticed the last ELSE clause was not need.

 

[RuminDange]

RD has convinced people that Unless means Except, but it does not. Until you realize that Unless and Except have different meanings, you will continue to think as you do on the sentence.

IF the sentence said Except instead of Unless, there might be some validity to RD's and your position. But, the sentence does not say Except. It says Unless.
or happy, it says nothing about whether a timeframe that can be unhappy is happy or unhappy.

I think you need this http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Unless

RD