Cure Minor on self when disabled

[CapnZapp]

I can no longer tell which side is which.

This is exactly why it's a shame some people can't leave a lost cause alone.

While I appreciate KarinsDad and others for honestly trying to explain the underlying logic, I feel this thread would be much more useful as a rules reference to interested newbies if it contained the original question, and the correct answer, and nothing else.

As a service to those still confused, I suggest you post a separate thread that contains just that. Obviously, the discussion should be kept to this thread here. Thank you.

 

[RuminDange]

This subject is starting to become a hopeless cause, but I will make one more attempt here.

Something I can agree with.

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

A valid interpretation however you are missing the change of state based on this interpretation. First off, a character is at -5 and casts a standard action spell for 3 points of healing. This brings him to -2. He is negative, and conscience. Then once the action is done according to this version he takes a point of damage while in negative numbers. At this point he falls unconscious and is now DYING. Hopefully he will stabilize.
The other three cases here by this interpretation work just fine.

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.

Yes, a character can still be in negative hit points after casting a healing spell and since they do not take the point of damage from performing a standard action they do not fall unconscious and become DYING (a change in state).

The quote once again from the SRD 3.5E in the file AbilitiesandConditions.rtf for Disabled is:

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 injury, 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 now in negative hit points and dying.

I don't know exactly where you keep getting the "-1 hit points and dying" part, maybe it is in one of the books but it is not in the SRD for 3.5E. So you see, by losing the hit point after casting a healing spell and still remaining in negative hit points will change your state to DYING, therefore you will lose one hit point a round until you STABLIZE or DIE. All changes in state for the character.
So if by chance, interpretation #1 is right then it is possible for a 1st Level Cleric to cast cure light wounds while STABLE at -5 hit points, receive 3 points of healing, take a point of damage for doing a standard action and DIE.
To me interpretation #1 cannot be the correct one if the characters hit points are increased by any means otherwise once a character is negative he better hope he doesn't have to heal himself unless he has a good chance of getting enough healing from it to go at least to 1 and then have an another good spell to cast.

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?

Seems to work just fine. PC increased his hit points from -5 to 3. What exactly is the question? Had he done any other standard action that didn't increase his hit points he would take a point of damage, fall UNCONSCIENCE, and become DYING because he is negative hit points.

It could be the following:
PC at 0, casts Cure Minor Wounds, goes to 1. Since he increased his hit points he is returned to FULLY FUNCTIONAL and his round is over since he only had a Move or Standard action to use; he chose the Standard action to cast the healing spell to bring him to FULLY FUNCTIONAL.

"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).

The "Unless" interpretation is true in my opinion in all cases not just Cure Minor Wounds at zero and negative hit points. Appearances can be deceiving.

I think by this point I have answered you questions you have asked to the best I can at this point. So once again use which ever version you wish to use and enjoy.


BTW KarinsDad, have you looked up the meaning of Unless lately? Just wondering since you posted this, you might just be surprised to learn how much these two words have in common:

... that Unless means Except, but it does not. Until you realize that Unless and Except have different meanings...

RD

 

[RuminDange]

This is exactly why it's a shame some people can't leave a lost cause alone.

While I appreciate KarinsDad and others for honestly trying to explain the underlying logic, I feel this thread would be much more useful as a rules reference to interested newbies if it contained the original question, and the correct answer, and nothing else.

As a service to those still confused, I suggest you post a separate thread that contains just that. Obviously, the discussion should be kept to this thread here. Thank you.

You cannot have a correct answer as long as there is more than one interpretation. Otherwise this is an attempt to thwart the debate and just bull rush your view as the correct one, which it isn't.

RD

 

[KarinsDad]

A valid interpretation however you are missing the change of state based on this interpretation. First off, a character is at -5 and casts a standard action spell for 3 points of healing. This brings him to -2. He is negative, and conscience. Then once the action is done according to this version he takes a point of damage while in negative numbers. At this point he falls unconscious and is now DYING. Hopefully he will stabilize.

Err, how?

According to the "Unless" statement, he is only dying if he did not heal himself. He did heal himself, so he is not dying.

After arguing so actively that the "Unless" statement prevents the point of damage in the Cure Minor case, you are now NOT allowing the "Unless" statement to do it's actual job (prevent death in the healing case)???


You are changing my side of the interpretation in some weird attempt to still justify your interpretation. I wrote and I quote:

"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."

Yes, a character can still be in negative hit points after casting a healing spell and since they do not take the point of damage from performing a standard action they do not fall unconscious and become DYING (a change in state).

Ok, so now you are arguing that they NEVER take the point of damage if they cast a healing spell.

HOW do you mystically arrive at this from the "Unless" statement?

I don't know exactly where you keep getting the "-1 hit points and dying" part, maybe it is in one of the books but it is not in the SRD for 3.5E.

Now you are confusing me. In the quote you quoted, I did not state that. It's as if you just started rambling here.

So you see, by losing the hit point after casting a healing spell and still remaining in negative hit points will change your state to DYING, therefore you will lose one hit point a round until you STABLIZE or DIE. All changes in state for the character.

No you won't. The "Unless" statement prevents it.

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

The healing action DID increase the disabled character's hit points. So, she is NOT "in negative hit points and dying". She is in negative hit points, but you can be in negative hit points and still be stable.

You cannot use the "Unless" statement for your bizarre attempt to prevent the previous "take a point of damage" rule and then not use it for what it states.

That is nonsensical.

So if by chance, interpretation #1 is right then it is possible for a 1st Level Cleric to cast cure light wounds while STABLE at -5 hit points, receive 3 points of healing, take a point of damage for doing a standard action and DIE.

To me interpretation #1 cannot be the correct one if the characters hit points are increased by any means otherwise once a character is negative he better hope he doesn't have to heal himself unless he has a good chance of getting enough healing from it to go at least to 1 and then have an another good spell to cast.

Except this does not happen due to the "Unless" statement. Your entire line of reasoning falters here.

The "Unless" interpretation is true in my opinion in all cases not just Cure Minor Wounds at zero and negative hit points. Appearances can be deceiving.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

If you THINK that the "Unless" statement prevents the "take a point of damage" rule when a character is at -3 and heals himself for 8, I cannot help you.

The "Unless" statement says nothing of the sort. That is a bizarre (and just possibly stubborn) opinion of yours which does not match the English language.


Also, I would appreciate it if you would not say that my interpretation is that PC at -5, casts Cure Light Wounds for 3, goes to -2, then goes to -3 and starts dying. The "Unless" statement prevents the dying part of this.

In fact, I suspect that this EXACT example is precisely why the Unless statement was put in by the authors, is in the text and written as it is.

It prevents dying when a character heals himself, takes the point of damage for a strenuous action, finds he is still in the -9 to -1 range, but is NOT dying because of the "Unless" statement.

 

[RuminDange]

So a character who is in negative hit points takes a point of damage does not become Dying?

RD

 

[KarinsDad]

So a character who is in negative hit points takes a point of damage does not become Dying?

Not if he took that point of damage by healing himself while disabled. The "Unless" sentence prevents it (in fact, it is becoming apparent that the "Unless" sentence is in the rules precisely for this reason).


Let me ask you a counter question.


Do the two sentences:

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

and

"Unless the action increased the disabled character's hit points, she takes the point of damage for performing a strenuous action, is in negative hit points and dying."

have identical meanings from your point of view?

 

[RuminDange]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I’ve been basically saying this for a while.

Neither interpretation can be correct or valid until and if WOTC explains what they mean here. And until they do the circle of argument can continue.

Everyone can use whatever interpretation they wish to use and enjoy the game, just it is best not to try to force your interpretation on another or attempt to mislead others into believing you are correct when in fact you have an interpretation, one of two valid ones perhaps.

You and I are neither correct nor wrong. We have a difference of interpretation, one that cannot be resolved due to you lack of understanding what "unless" means, and my supposed lack of knowledge of the English language and grammar; which I doubt is the case, since I know how well I have in done in my undergraduate degree English requirements, and I looked up the meaning of "unless" in several places just to make sure I didn't miss something, have you?

Have a good day.

RD

 

[atom crash]

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.

Ok, last attempt to explain. It's not retroactive, it's counteractive. It counteracts the effects of diabled you're currently suffering from, but doesn't restore lost actions. Nothing in the game has the power to restore lost actions, short of a wish, which is arguably the most potent effect in the game.

But anyway, arguing semantics is about as helpful than arguing the logic surrounding the "unless" red herring.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Ok, last attempt to explain. It's not retroactive, it's counteractive.

Except it *is* retroactive, because by your ruling it removes the penalty that was enforced at the beginning of the current round. Specifically, if you begin the round Disabled, you are limited to a single move or a standard action and if you do the latter you will take a point of damage.

You are saying that it retroactively removes one of the penalties you are subject to.

Or, heck, to use your terminology, it counteracts one of the penalties you are subject to.

Why, then, does it remove one penalty but not the other?

 

[Piratecat]

You know, no one reached a concensus the last time this came up, either.

I don't like cutting Patryn off, but I think we've covered just about all the ground that needs covering. Folks should feel free to reread the thread in order to understand other peoples' opinions and rules judgments, but that's all the discussion we'll have on this for a few weeks.

Klunk.