Cure Minor on self when disabled

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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.

I assume you mean a max of 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?

Yep. She's going to perform a "standard action or other strenuous activity," so when she completes it, she'll lose 1 hit point.

The Heal spell "goes off," and brings her up to 100 hp.

Then, the consequences of doing so while initially disabled kick in, and she loses a single hit point.

She has thus been the subject of "healing that raises your hit points above 0," so she'll be "fully functional again".

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

I'm genuinely fascinated by the confusion that exists on this point. Does anyone know how we can go about getting an official answer?

 

[RigaMortus]

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

I don't see any confusion there at all personally. I only quoted the rules as written. If they seem confusing to you, you are either reading into it too much or the designers did a poor job explaining it, not me.

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.

Sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying here. Clarification of what consequence? I think the quote pretty much says it nicely w/o any need for further clarification. It's very cut and dry. Does your activity increase your hit points? Yes it does. Then you are not at -1 hit points or dying. If it did not increase your hit points, then you would be at -1 point and dying. Where is the confusion in this?

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".

That is very poor wording and makes it more confusing. "...if you are at 0 you're still disabled." Do you mean prior to casting the spell, or after it completed?

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.

It doesn't matter if it is a seperate paragraph or not, the paragraph is still under the subject of being disabled. So all sentances/paragraphs under the "Disabled" section would relate to what it means when you are disabled, and what happens if you do something when you are disabled. So... if you are Disabled, any healing that raises your hit points above 0 makes you fully functional again... as if you were NEVER reduced to 0 or fewer hit points.

Again, where if the confusion? That paragraph is explaining a situation (specifically, what happens if you receive healing when you are disabled) and what happens if you are disabled.

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.

Well that is pretty obvious. No need for them to write that. If I am at 1 hit point, I am at 1 hit point. OBVIOUSLY I am not taking any penalties from being disabled. So the only reason for the statement is to tell us what happens if we get healed while we are at 0 hit points, whether it is a 1 point heal or a 50 point heal.

Let me ask this... if I am at -5 hit points, and get healed for 10 hit points (putting me up to 5), do I still suffer for being in the "dying" state? Under dying, it doesn't state what happens if I get healed.

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.

It is under the Stable section because the "stable" state can apply when you are in negative hit points. If I am at -5 I am dying. If I get healed 1 point to -4 hps, I am not dying, I am stable and concious (also known as "disabled"), but I am still in negative hit points. If I get healed up to 0 hit points, I am concious and disabled.

There are two situations that can put you at 0. One is when you have positive hit points, and get reduced to 0 hit points. This is covered under "disabled". The other situation is when you are healed to 0 hit points after being in the negatives and dying state. This is covered under "Stable" as well as "Disabled".

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.

Again... It's very plain English. If you are healed (whether it is 1 hit point or 100 hit points) when you are at 0 hit points, you are treated as if you had NEVER BEEN disabled at 0 hit points. How can I take 1 hit point of damage from being disabled if I never was disabled to begin with?

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

Good Luck!

I did read it, and it seems pretty cut and dry to me.

 

[D+1]

You are at 0 hit points and disabled. Any standard action you take WILL cause you to take 1 hp of damage after that action is concluded. This is clear in the rules as written.

The effect of a Cure Minor wounds spell gives the recipient 1 hp.

If a characters hit points are raised above 0 he is no longer disabled and is fully functional as if he weren't disabled in the first place. What that means is that from that instant forward he is not disabled. He can take any action at 1hp that he could at 1000hp. Characters are UNIMPAIRED if they are above 0 hit points regardless of when or how they managed to get above 0 hit points. Still no problem from anybody I hope?

Now, being treated "as if you never WERE disabled" is not meant to be applied retroactively. It is meant to be applied PROactively. It does not turn back the clock to the when you first became disabled and then replay every round since that occurred.

If you take a standard action while disabled you lose a hit point AFTER THAT ACTION IS COMPLETED. If that action gives you one hit point, sure you are fully functional and can NOW take actions as if you had never been disabled - but it doesn't change the fact that you WERE. Thus, in the instant the spell is completed you gain your hit point and are not disabled. In the instant following that you LOSE a hit point because despite being able to now take actions with absolute freedom you still took an action while you WERE disabled and NOT being disabled NOW doesn't change that. You thus take a point of damage, are again reduced to 0 and are again disabled. You are unable to enjoy the fruits of having ceased to be disabled because you were silly enough to take an action that completely fails to effectively overcome your disabled condidtion.

This should not be that difficult to grasp. A character puts himself under strain while casting when disabled and takes damage from it. If you're casting a healing spell when disabled it had better result in more than that puny additional 1 HP or it's not going to gain you anything because it will NOT offset the ADDITIONAL DAMAGE YOU DO BY CASTING regardless of the effects of the completed spell.

This is NOT a screwjob to players and their characters. Applying the rules in a reasonable and consistent manner is not screwing the players. The situation is unlikely to even come up because players are seldom going to try to heal themselves by such a minimal amount as there are a great number of magical items, spells, and abilities that will do so much better than a guaranteed waste of effort. If it does come up it is simply a matter of players being aware that they must heal MORE DAMAGE THAN THEY DO TO THEMSELVES IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO GET THAT HEALING if they want to avoid wasting their efforts and resources.

 

[Gruns]

Wow. How is this at all confusing? The text clearly states that you take 1 point >UNLESS< you perform an action that heals you. "Unless your activity increased your hit points, you're now at -1 hit points, and you're dying." Perfectly clear. The word UNLESS is there to show that an act of healing is the exception to the 'lose a point' rule. Think for a minute if this was not the case... Why would the line even need to be there? To remind you to take the 1 damage that it just told you to take in the line before?!?

Later...
Gruns

 

[Lasher Dragon]

LOL I agree with Gruns completely. It just seems like such a non-issue....

 

[KarinsDad]

Wow. How is this at all confusing? The text clearly states that you take 1 point >UNLESS< you perform an action that heals you. "Unless your activity increased your hit points, you're now at -1 hit points, and you're dying." Perfectly clear. The word UNLESS is there to show that an act of healing is the exception to the 'lose a point' rule.

No, the word "unless" is there to tell you that you will be dying if you perform a strenuous action that does not heal you.

The rule is:

"You can take move actions without further injuring yourself, but if you perform any standard action (or any other strenuous action) you take 1 point of damage after the completing the act."

The sentence after that in no way shape or form changes this rule. It merely indicates what will happen if you perform a strenuous action that does not heal you.

If you perform a strenuous action that heals you, you will NOT be at -1 and dying. You will be at zero or higher.

Think for a minute if this was not the case... Why would the line even need to be there? To remind you to take the 1 damage that it just told you to take in the line before?!?

It is there as a reminder that you will be unconscious and dying and hence the TRUE consequences of performing a strenuous action when disabled. No more. No less. It does not change the preceding rule.


The real point of contention between the camps here is the phrase:

"just as if you'd never been reduced to 0 or fewer hit points"

One camp says this means that if you get there and stay there, you are ok and the point of the one point of damage rule does not apply "as if you'd never been reduced to 0 or fewer hit points".

The other camp says that this does not change the preceding rule of taking a point of damage.

Fair enough. I can see where people could interpret it either way. However, I do want to ask an important question on it.


Does this phrase ALSO mean that if you are disabled and ONLY get one move or standard action and use a healing spell to go above zero, do you THEN get to perform another move or standard action this same round "just as if you'd never been reduced to 0 or fewer hit points"?


I think that if the answer is no, then the answer to whether you take the point of damage for being disabled is yes.

I think that if the answer is yes, then the answer to whether you take the point of damage for being disabled can be yes, but at the same time this is VERY bizarre. If the authors intended to totally wipe the slate clean, remove the disabled 1 point damage rule AND remove the disabled only a single move or standard action rule, then they did a VERY poor job of communicating that.


I think that the phrase "just as if you'd never been reduced to 0 or fewer hit points" is not a qualifier on how the other disabled rules work, it is merely an indication that you are no longer disabled if you manage to get to 1 point or higher by the end of the round. No more. No less.

It does not remove the "you take 1 point of damage after the completing the act" rule and it does not remove the "You can only take a single move or standard action each turn" rule either.

For those who think it removes the first rule, you should also think that it removes the second rule or you are being inconsistent.

 

[dvvega]

From Gruns
The text clearly states that you take 1 point >UNLESS< you perform an action that heals you.

No it doesn't

From Gruns
"Unless your activity increased your hit points, you're now at -1 hit points, and you're dying." Perfectly clear.

Agreed

From Gruns
The word UNLESS is there to show that an act of healing is the exception to the 'lose a point' rule.

No it isn't.

That line is in there for the express purpose of indicating that if you DO NOT get healing you will lose 1 hp and be at -1 if you perform a standard action. It does not avoid the fact that you will lose 1 hp.

Example: I'm on 0 and drink a potion of healing. Strenuous since I'm using a standard action to do something OTHER THAN move. I gain 1d8+3 hit points (assume I rolled a 1 so that's 4). I am at 4 hp. Action ends, all done, all over, all finsihed. I lose 1 hp because I was disable and performed an action. Down to 3hp I go. I'm not dying since I had hit points healed.

D

 

[Saeviomagy]

This is NOT a screwjob to players and their characters. Applying the rules in a reasonable and consistent manner is not screwing the players.

Unless they're applied in a manner which consistently screws the players, of course.

Let's take a look at the end effects of the two interpretations of the rules.

If you must heal more than one point to become undisabled:
Cure minor wounds doesn't really work for characters at 0. Characters reduced to such a desperate state that they only have such a spell left will find that it is useless. Last ditch attempts to escape are then decreased by a small amount. TPKs are increased by a small amount.

If you can heal a single point (and then take your move as well):
Desperate castings of CmW can allow a last chance at escape. TPK's are decreased by a small amount.

If there are any other effects on the game, then by all means submit them.

As it stands, I think most DMs would agree that a TPK harms the campaign, so the better rule is that cure minor wounds does help.

 

[KarinsDad]

As it stands, I think most DMs would agree that a TPK harms the campaign, so the better rule is that cure minor wounds does help.

I think this reasoning is not overly impressive as why to pick one interpretation over the other.

The reason being is that as a general rule, only two classes can cast Cure Minor Wounds: Clerics and Druids.

This particular situation (that a Cleric or Druid goes to zero hit points AND does not have a higher level cure spell or cure potion or cure scroll or other cure item available AND no other party healer type is capable of helping) is so extremely rare that the TPK argument is virtually nonexistent. IMO.


With regard to what the actual rule is (or should be), how would you answer my question above:

"Does this phrase ALSO mean that if you are disabled and ONLY get one move or standard action and use a healing spell to go above zero, do you THEN get to perform another move or standard action this same round "just as if you'd never been reduced to 0 or fewer hit points"?"