Cure Minor on self when disabled

[Diirk]

You could argue it either way really.. say that you heal and are at 1 hp, so its as if you were never disabled and you don't lose any further hp. Thats a valid interpretation.

Or you could say you heal and are at 1 hp, then lose 1 hp for strenuous activity. Now you aren't above 0 hp, so the as if you were never disabled bit doesn't even apply.

Both are valid interpretations imo, just do what you think makes most sense to you

 

[the Jester]

I'm a mean, ruthless bastard of a dm who enjoys it when his players tell each other, "Dude, you got Jamesed!" when they die, go blind, get maimed or paralyzed or whatever... but I'll let 'em de-disable themselves with a cure minor wounds. The rules are unclear; I usually err in favor of the pcs in cases like that.

 

[CapnZapp]

A Disabled character who casts Cure Minor Wounds on herself will lose 1 hp after completing the act, because the act is "a standard action (or any other strenuous action)".

As the act only heals a single point of damage, the character stays at 0+1-1=0 hp. In her next round, she is still disabled, and the same thing occurs should she cast CMW again.

Even if the character cast heal on herself, she would still lose the hp after the act.

Where is this not clear?

 

[RigaMortus]

A Disabled character who casts Cure Minor Wounds on herself will lose 1 hp after completing the act, because the act is "a standard action (or any other strenuous action)".

As the act only heals a single point of damage, the character stays at 0+1-1=0 hp. In her next round, she is still disabled, and the same thing occurs should she cast CMW again.

Even if the character cast heal on herself, she would still lose the hp after the act.

Where is this not clear?

It says if you are disabled and take a standard action, you lose 1 hit point.

0+1 = not disabled = no additional -1

 

[CapnZapp]

Huh?

You are disabled when you take the action, therefore you will lose the hp after completing that action, no matter which action you take.

If the action is casting Heal on yourself, you end up one hp short of your maximum (unless you have >150 hp of course).

 

[RigaMortus]

Huh?

You are disabled when you take the action, therefore you will lose the hp after completing that action, no matter which action you take.

If the action is casting Heal on yourself, you end up one hp short of your maximum (unless you have >150 hp of course).

It does state that you lose 1 hit point after you take the action, I'll give you that. But what does this mean (p.145 of the PHB):

You can take move actions without further injuring yourself, but if you perform any standard action (or any other action the DM deems strenuous, including some free actions such as casting a quickened spell) you take 1 point of damage after the completing act. Unless your activity increased your hit points, you are now at -1 hit point, and you are dying.

Question... Does a Cure Minor Wounds increase your hit points?

It THEN goes on to say...

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.

So again I must ask... Does Cure Minor Wounds raise your hit points above 0?

 

[CapnZapp]

Please try not to make the rules confusing when no confusion exists.

I do not have the PHB here, so the SRD will have to do. Please point out any differences between the two texts.

Assuming there are none, your first quote "Unless your activity increased your hit points, you are now at -1 hit points, and youre dying." is only a clarification of the consequence of losing that hit point. It is unreasonable to expect the designers to provide the following longer text: "Unless your activity increased your hit points, you are now at -1 hit points, and youre dying. If you are at -10 you're dead, if you are at 0 you're still disabled, and if your at 1 or above you're not affected at all anymore".

Your second quote "Healing that raises your hit points above 0 makes you fully functional again, just as if youd never been reduced to 0 or fewer hit points." is in a whole new paragraph, and cannot be construed as being an exception to the rule of the preceding paragraph.

This statement simply states the important but general rule that as soon as you have 1 or more hit points you suffer no penalties from even having been at 0 hp or lower. It should be replicated in all those subheaders it concerns, and indeed it is so: you'll find it in the discussion about Stable characters too. Perhaps it would have been better to put this rule in a subheader of its own.

The fact that you take no penalties when at 1 hp obviously doesn't change the fact that you're about to lose a hp. As I said, even if you cast Heal, you would still lose that hp at the end of your turn.

Simply read the rules paragraphs with no preconcieved notions of reality, to make your job of understanding them as simple as possible.

Good Luck!

 

[thalmin]

You could argue it either way really.. say that you heal and are at 1 hp, so its as if you were never disabled and you don't lose any further hp. Thats a valid interpretation.

Or you could say you heal and are at 1 hp, then lose 1 hp for strenuous activity. Now you aren't above 0 hp, so the as if you were never disabled bit doesn't even apply.

Both are valid interpretations imo, just do what you think makes most sense to you

I agree with Diirk, here, but will add: Let your players know your interpretation before a character wastes the spell or dies needlessly. The players have a right to know how your world works.

 

[RuminDange]

And the meaning of "is" is?

Really what is the big deal? It is ONE freaking hit point!

If you go one way you screw the player over a rule that has an ambiguous meaning. The other way, what do you do? Nothing. If that is all the PC has to heal with, then they screwed anyway if they are still in a fight unless they can flee. But one thing you can guarantee is the fun sucked right out the game over another rule that be taken two ways.

Rule 0 it and move on.

This is one of the reasons I believe as does my players that Cure Minor Wounds should do at least 1d3 healing. Look at other 0-Level spells. Ray of Frost does a 1d3 damage, why can't you heal 1d3 damage? That has never made sense to me.

RD

 

[Shadeus]

Wow, who knew this was such a hot topic?

Here's a related questioned. Let's say this cleric is disabled and has 100 hp. Instead of CMW, she casts heal on herself. She has to be 11th-level to cast the spell so it would normally fully heal her of all wounds. But for those of you in the camp that says she is disabled and would lose a hit point at the end of her standard action, would she be at 99 hp instead of 100?