Cure Minor on self when disabled

[thalmin]

Um, KarinsDad?
Character cannot even cast if at negative numbers.

EDIT. I am wrong here. OOPS

 

[KarinsDad]

No, I'm not arguing what is implied. I'm arguing the interpretation of what is written. Just like KarinsDad is.
If we want to go with the Rule As Written: If I'm at exactly 0 hit points, and use my Standard Action to Fireball myself for 50, then I am at -1. (And dying!)

...

Now stop throwing out irrelevant metaphors, similies, examples and stick to the facts. (And tell me why I'm not at -1 after Fireballing myself for 50. Do not imply anything. Use just the RAW.)

Yes, I considered this type of example, but did not bring it up because it just opens up a irrelevant can of worms to muddy the waters once again (as I think the Unless conversation does as well).

We all really know what WotC wants:

-10 or lower: dead
-9 to -1 and not stable: dying
-9 to 0 and stable: disabled
1 or higher: ok

The only thing that people tend to not know is whether the phraseology within the disabled section of the sentences "unless" and "as if you’d never been reduced to 0 or fewer hit points" removes the "take a point of damage" rule.

Neither of these rules explicitly state to ignore that rule, it is just the way people appear to want to interpret them.

If we were talking Cure Critical Wounds, I am just confused how either of these two statements in any way indicate that the "take a point of damage for strenuous activity" rule is obsolete. And so far, nobody has done an adequate job of explaining it. At least to me (and probably to others like Patryn and Hypersmurf).

 

[KarinsDad]

Um, KarinsDad?
Character cannot even cast if at negative numbers.

An unconscious character cannot cast at negative numbers.

A conscious stable character at negative numbers can cast a spell.

 

[thalmin]

An unconscious character cannot cast at negative numbers.

A conscious stable character at negative numbers can cast a spell.

Sorry, I missed that.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

While everyone is focusing on the "unless blah blah blah" statement, I'd still like to see more discussion on this sentence:

"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."

I'll restate my point of view on the subject.

1. The statement appears at first blush to be retroactive: "as if you'd never been reduced to 0 or fewer hit points." This is the main contention of the "Pro-CMW Camp."

2. Being actually retroactive, however, results in severe temporal oddities. For instance, if you are Disabled before your action in round 3, take move actions in rounds 3-6, and heal yourself with a spell (other than CMW ) in round 7, should you not retroactively receive actions in the last three rounds?

3. That's a patently silly proposition.

4. Therefore, it's not really a retroactive statement at all, which means it can't retroactively apply to the beginning of *this* round either (i.e., casting a healing spell in round 3 doesn't give you an extra move action).

5. Therefore, you don't get to ignore any of the consequences of being Disabled, one of which is, to paraphrase, "If you take a standard action (or perform other strenuous action), you lose 1 hit point at the end of that action."

6. Therefore, "Healing that raises your hit points above 0" can only be interpreted as "Healing that raises your hit points above 0 allowing for the hit point you're going to lose for performing a standard [etc.] action."

7. Cure Minor Wounds, since it heals only 1 hit point, is not "Healing that raises your hit points above 0 allowing for the hit point you're going to lose for performing a standard [etc.] action."

8. Therefore, CMW cannot be used to bring yourself out of the Disabled state.

9. However, CMW does work with the "Unless" clause, because it is a standard action that does heal you, and therefore prevents you from being at negative hit points and dying.

10. Furthermore, it is my contention that a close reading of the rules from 2nd Edition (and possibly 1st - I don't own it) explain the reasoning behind the "Healing that raises ... [etc.]" statement.

11. Succinctly, in earlier editions, characters who were healed from negative hit points (dying) or 0 hit points (unconscious) into positive hit points were "disabled" until they could rest.

12. Thus, character's saved from Death's Door were prohibited from acting in the rest of the current battle, at least.

13. The designers of 3rd Edition wanted to make it absolutely clear that this rule from previous editions was being overwritten.

14. Thus, they included the "Healing that raises ... [etc.]" text.

15. The End.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.

The exception is to the default clause "everyone is happy"

You start with "everyone is happy" and then you say "except on monday.

The english language lets you rearrange this and say "Except on monday, everyone is happy".

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.

No, the default clause is "you are now on negative hitpoints". The exception is "Unless the action increased the disabled character's hit points".

The previous sentence HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

First my understanding of english is wrong,

Check. You've got two sentences. You're claiming that despite the fact that each is complete, that a fragment of the second sentence refers to the first.

It's like saying "This is my sister, Andrea. How do you like your new place?" Is the equivalent of "How do you like Andrea?". It's not, and no amount of restating it in different forms will make it so.

then the grammar,

Grammar is a subsection of the english language.

followed by twisting it around,

This is a good description of what you are doing to the english language

and finally flawed logic.

In this case, a logical argument which is incorrectly based. By misusing the english language, you start with a flawed logical argument, therefore nothing productive can arise (other than discovering the original cause of the mistake).

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.

I think this is coming quite close to exactly what you are railing against.

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?

Attacks on your argument. Not on you.

 

[KarinsDad]

Sorry, I missed that.

No problem. That is why we discuss here on the boards. Game on!

 

[Saeviomagy]

"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."

No, you shouldn't argue about logic. You should argue with logic. A statements validity and usefulness can only be proven by logic. Until that is done, the statement could very well be anything from misleading to outright wrong.

Furthermore, a statement that cannot be explained is totally useless. The fact behind it may be useful and valid, but if the statement cannot be communicated in a meaningful way, it's useless or worse.

 

[atom crash]

In response to Patryn, perhaps a rewrite of that sentence would make things clearer:

"Healing that raises your hit points above 0 allows you to act normally once again."

I tend to think "fully functional again, just as if you’d never been reduced to 0 or fewer hit points" is more than a way of saying "let go all that garbage from earlier editions, this is how it works now." Are there any other instances in the rules of spelling out differences from earlier editions? If anyone knows of any, please share. I'm curious.

Well, I've already explained earlier another interpretation of the phrase "fully functional again, just as if you’d never been reduced to 0 or fewer hit points" so I won't rehash it here, and let it go at that. Wake me if any new discussion happens in this thread.

In the meantime, I'll gladly rule IMC that if such time should arise that the cleric casts CMW on herself while at 0 hp, she'll be at 1 hp but her turn will be over, next person.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

In the meantime, I'll gladly rule IMC that if such time should arise that the cleric casts CMW on herself while at 0 hp, she'll be at 1 hp but her turn will be over, next person.

It other words, you're treating it like it's retroactive (you get to ignore part of the rules regarding being Disabled and acting) but not retroactive (you don't get to ignore the other part of the rules regarding being Disabled and acting).

If you're fine with it, go ahead!