Cure Minor on self when disabled

[Mark]

No, you shouldn't argue about logic.

That's what I said.

You should argue with logic.

That, while a different issue, might also be true, but not an absolute. If your intention is to win an arguement, and your audience might be swayed with logic, it might be a good idea to argue with logic if you have a firm grasp of how to do so.

A statements validity and usefulness can only be proven by logic.

Proven? Maybe. But that doesn't mean that a statement cannot be valid and useful without being proven, and without explanation.

Until that is done, the statement could very well be anything from misleading to outright wrong.

True, it could be many things.

Furthermore, a statement that cannot be explained is totally useless.

Untrue. Some audiences require no explanations, and might be put off by an explanation. Alternately, if someone required an explanation for everything, and some things were time-sensitive, it might be wise to take good advice on faith if the source is trusted. There are many instances where that might be an untrue state.

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.

See previous section.

"Useless" is an opinion that is not universally attached to a fact or its expression, or the lack thereof. The problem, IMO, is that you seem to be assuming that your opinion of a fact, and your opinion of its expression, is a universal truth. Now if you say that something is useless to you then I certainly can't argue with that opinion, even if I felt you to be inflexible and unwilling to find some usefulness where others might too quickly reject something outright.

 

[KarinsDad]

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 think this is exactly what they meant, they just didn't write it this clearly.

On a similar note, the "fully functional again, just as if you’d never been reduced to 0 or fewer hit points" sentence does not even show up in the DMG description of disabled at all (or in the glossary definition of disabled in the PHB), even though the DMG appears to be the most thought out and clear statement of disabled.

The sentence appears to be text designed to let players know that they are no longer disabled once they get above zero hit points. There are no lingering effects.

If this is what it means (and it must minimally mean this), then of course there is no need for it to be reiterated in the DMG section on disabled.

And, reading more into it is possible, but then you have to decide whether to read more into it about number of actions in the round as well and not just on whether the "take a point of damage rule" is reversible.

 

[Gruns]

Best. Thread. Ever.

Later!
Gruns

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Seeya, Gruns! Thanks for your opinions (though I disagree with them).

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Aaaarggghhhh!

I am going to stick with my interpretation until WotC itself clarifies the matter, and perhaps even then.

But this thread makes me want to get a thumpy stick and visit some people on both sides of the argument.

The Auld Grump

 

[rvalle]

Wow, I can't believe this is on page 5. Truth to tell, I've only read pages 1 and 5. Doesn't look like its moved very far.


I had an odd thought about this. Lets say that a non-cleric was at 0 with a helpfull cleric standing next to him (this is going to be silly...) getting ready to cast that 1 point heal. For some reason the non-cleric is going to be uncooperative. He spends his standard action jumping up and down wanting to stay at 0 (there's one in every group...). The character jumps losing 1 point and the cleric casts giving one point back and the guy is at 0 again.

Isn't this kind of what is happening when the cleric cast the spell on himself?

Note the sequence of events could be weird as to who goes when. If there was not combat going on this could happen 'out of combat' and so not with init. rolls.

If you wanted the events to take place at the same time the cleric could ready an action "If the wacko jumps up and down I cast my 1 point cure spell on him". Guy jumps up and down losing 1 point, spell goes off giving one back. Net 0.

Thats pretty much the way I see it. The cleric is doing something that causes 1 point of damage. The something he does gives one point of healing. Net 0. The damage comes BEFORE the healing happens. Even if the spell is instetanious (sic) the damage is going to happen just before the healing as its the action of doing the healing that causes the damage. Its a space-time-continum thing.



I need to get to bed.

rv

 

[thalmin]

Thank you for the best explanation yet.

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

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?

I don't think that anyone in the "Pro-CMW Camp" agrees with this. It's pretty clear that you weren't literally not disabled during those rounds. Just that after the healing, it is now (when the damage would otherwise be applied) "as if" you had never been disabled.

3. That's a patently silly proposition.

Which is what makes it such a good straw man.

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.

OK, this I'll buy.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I don't think that anyone in the "Pro-CMW Camp" agrees with this. It's pretty clear that you weren't literally not disabled during those rounds. Just that after the healing, it is now (when the damage would otherwise be applied) "as if" you had never been disabled.

In other words, you're just restating the "It's retroactive, it's just not retroactive" position.

Either it is retroactive, or it isn't.

If it *is* retroactive, then you can't logically limit it to just the current round because there is nothing in the rules to support a "this round only" interpretation. (In other words, it's either as if you were never disabled, or it isn't as if you were never disabled.)

If it isn't retroactive, then it can't retroactively remove part of this round's penalties.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[KarinsDad]

In other words, you're just restating the "It's retroactive, it's just not retroactive" position.

Either it is retroactive, or it isn't.

If it *is* retroactive, then you can't logically limit it to just the current round because there is nothing in the rules to support a "this round only" interpretation. (In other words, it's either as if you were never disabled, or it isn't as if you were never disabled.)

If it isn't retroactive, then it can't retroactively remove part of this round's penalties.

You can't have it both ways.

A fine pickel.

I felt preety good when I came up with "retroactively do not take a hit point" / "non-retroactively lose a move action" dichotomy, but then most people ignored it and we got hung up by a few people believing the "Unless" statement (which has even less ammunition in it than the "as if it never happened" statement).


I'm hoping to finally put the "Unless" argument to bed with the following example, but I suspect that people will ignore this one as well:


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?