This subject is starting to become a hopeless cause, but I will make one more attempt here. Hopefully RD or someone will be able to answer the last few questions at the end of this post.
I will use the Disabled definition from page 300 of the 3.5 DMG. This definition is a little more complete than some of the other SRD and PHB ones.
"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 injuries, 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 in negative hit points and dying."
Let's look at some examples with both interpretations:
Interpretation #1: "but performing ANY standard action deals 1 point of damage after the completion of the act" every single time
PC at -5, casts Cure Light Wounds for 3, goes to -2, then goes to -3
PC at -5, casts Cure Light Wounds for 8, goes to 3, then goes to 2
PC at 0, casts Aid for 1 temporary hit point, goes to 1, then goes to 0
PC at 0, casts Aid for 3 temporary hit points, goes to 3, then goes to 2
Interpretation #2: "but performing ANY standard action deals 1 point of damage after the completion of the act" unless the action increases hit points
PC at -5, casts Cure Light Wounds for 3, goes to -2
PC at -5, casts Cure Light Wounds for 8, goes to 3
PC at 0, casts Aid for 1 temporary hit point, goes to 1
PC at 0, casts Aid for 3 temporary hit points, goes to 3
Using BOTH interpretations, the character can still be in negative hit points after the fact.
Using BOTH interpretations, the character is not dying if she is in negative hit points after the fact
Hmmm. So, healing (or gaining hit points) does not require in either interpretation that the character is dying, healing only makes sure that the character is NOT dying.
What is different about the two interpretations?
One interpretation disregards an earlier sentence. The other does not.
The interpretation that disregards the earlier sentence does not do it because the "Unless" sentence explicitly states to disregard the earlier sentence, but rather because of some unusual interpretation of what the "Unless" sentence really states.
But, less us carefully look at the example:
Interpretation #1:
PC at -5, casts Cure Light Wounds for 8, goes to 3, then goes to 2
Interpretation #2:
PC at -5, casts Cure Light Wounds for 8, goes to 3
How does interpretation #2 work at all here?
"Taking move actions doesn't risk further injuries, 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 in negative hit points and dying."
How does the "Unless" sentence stop the "deals 1 point of damage" sentence from doing a point of damage in this case? The action DID increase the disabled character's hit points, so she is not in negative hit points and dying.
Can RD (or someone who agrees with him) answer this question and focus SOLELY on this case to do so?
For the "Unless" interpretation to be true, it has to be true for all cases, not just the Cure Minor Wounds at zero hit points case (which btw, it does not appear to be true for either).
