Cure Minor on self when disabled

[dvvega]

If it is getting to the point that a Cure Minor Wounds is the only option to save the entire party then the DM has already let things go too far, or the party has done some abominable things.

The whole discussion has been related to what happens if I am on 0 and I cast Cure Minor Wounds (or equivalent 1 hp heal). In fact it is the ONLY situation that can cause this much discussion, because any other cure method will heal at least 2 hps (1st level Cleric with Cure Light Wounds heals a minimum of 2).

Applying the rules as written (and saying Cure Minor leaves you on 0) will not TPK a party that hasn't gotten to the TPK point already.

People have lost sight of what the question was and have started discussion the implications on player fun / TPK.

If the cleric is out of healing completely AND has only Cure Minor Wounds AND is on 0 AND the rest of the party is dying ... the question shouldn't be "can I Cure Minor and bypass the rules" the question should be "How on earth did they get there?"

This also assumes they have no potions, no wands, nothing, nada, zippo (great lighter that). If the party's resources are that low/spent/non-existent, then there is a bigger problem at play than a simple rule interpretation.

Was it DM error in underestimating an encounter's deadliness.
Was it the players who pushed just too far.
and so forth.

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

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"?

You have made a very cogent argument, and I now think that the rule can be read either way.

As to your question, the answer is no, the phrase does not also mean that. However, the reason it doesn't mean that is because by the time you have completed casting the spell, your six seconds are over. The hp loss occurs after the action, whereas the slowness of your actions applies during the action. So this is not inconsistent.

 

[Gruns]

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.

The sentence after that is:
"Unless your activity increased your hit points, you're now at -1 hit points, and you're dying."

Again I ask- Why would they put this sentence in here if healing was NOT an exception? There is absolutely no reason for it, as it simply restates what was just said in the previous sentence. The editors surely don't think the gamers out there are so dimwitted that they need to be reminded that 0 - 1 = -1. If for some reason the editors DID feel this was needed, they wouldn't use the line about healing and it should read:
"As soon as the act is completed, you're now at -1 hit points, and you're dying."
(Then, because we're all morons, they'd have to remind us that if we healed ourselves we'd have to add those hit points to our total. Then they'd need a line to remind us that if we take damage from our action, we need to subtract those hit points...)

Whatever happened to common sense?

As for the "as if you were never reduced to 0 or fewer hit points" line, I dont think that comes into play here at all. It more or less says you get to keep the spells you had memmed, you have the same number of turns undeads left, same number of Stunning Attacks, etc... That line is there in the sections for other people healing a disabled/dying character as well. Not a factor in my debate.

Later...
Gruns

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.

Since every other arguement has basically come down to personal preference, even a slight weight added to either side will tip the scales.

There is this slight benefit to the campaign and to the game if you rule it my way. If you rule it your way, what's the benefit?

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"?"

Yup, sure. A move action, not a standard action (assuming you got the hitpoint back with a standard action of course).

 

[Meeki]

Alright... wow this post has gone on long enough, LOOK AT THE SRD!!

Here:

DISABLED (0 HIT POINTS)
When your current hit points drop to exactly 0, you’re disabled.
You can only take a single move or standard action each turn (but not both, nor can you take full-round actions). 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. Unless your activity increased your hit points, you are now at –1 hit points, and you’re dying.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.
You can also become disabled when recovering from dying. In this case, it’s a step toward recovery, and you can have fewer than 0 hit points (see Stable Characters and Recovery, below).


I fail to see what everyone is arguing about?? It CLEARLY says you will not take the damage. the term JUST AS IF YOU'D NEVER BEEN REDUCED TO 0 OR FEWER HIT POINTS. means you do not take damage, if you did they wouldnt put that in there. We assume that your character was never reduced to 0 and thus never disabled in the first place, you just used a round to become functional agian.

 

[reanjr]

As you said, it says in the PHB that the damage occurs after the action. After the action, there's no reason for the damage to occur.

 

[Iskrets]

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.

Those who quote the second half of this sentence as evidence that damage would not be taken after casting Cure Minor Wounds are missing a critical portion of the SRD, that being the first part of the sentence. This is not saying that everything is as if you had never been reduced to 0 or fewer hit points, it is saying that you are fuctional as if you had never been reduced to 0 or fewer hit points. Other effects, such as strenuous action damage, are not mentioned, because they are separate effects, rather than limits upon the functionality of your character.

Unless your activity increased your hit points, you are now at –1 hit points, and you’re dying.

Note well that 0 is not -1 hit points. I don't think anyone is arguing that CMW will result in a character having -1 hit points.

That said, I vote screw the rules. Unless your campaign is doing its damnedest to mirror RPGA-style D&D (Dear God, why would you do that?), rules can be bent. While, in such a situation, it probably won't save the party, it's at least nice to feel that they are doing something. I hate for people to die unhappy. Andre, you will be missed.

Iskrets out.

 

[Hypersmurf]

As you said, it says in the PHB that the damage occurs after the action. After the action, there's no reason for the damage to occur.

Sure there is. You took a standard action while you were disabled.

An injury-type poison doesn't take effect unless the attack deals damage.

If I take damage, and get poisoned, and then get cured back to full hit points, I'm unwounded - it's as if the attack never dealt damage at all!

But a minute later, I still suffer the secondary poison damage. Even though it needed a wound to be delivered, and I'm not wounded.

If I'm disabled, and I take a standard action, I'll take a point of damage after the action. Even if I'm not disabled by the time that happens.

-Hyp.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I'll just quote the whole portion on Disabled from the SRD.




That's the whole thing. As you'll see, the "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." part is right there in the Disabled description. It's not pulled from other parts of the SRD and applied to this area, it is contained specifically in the disabled section of the SRD.

Healing is an instant. You instantly go from 0 to 1 hp and upon reaching 1hp are no longer Disabled. Being no longer Disabled the clauses that occur AFTER (specifically AFTER) the standard action would no longer apply. You instantly left Disabled behind when the spell raised your HP beyond 0.

--fje

That has been my reading as well, and barring a statement from WotC to the contrary will continue to be my ruling. And no, repeated quotes from the SRD does not count as a statement from WotC in this instance.

The Auld Grump

 

[CapnZapp]

A few helpful points:

* The "Unless your activity increased your hit points, you're now at -1 hit points, and you're dying." is a simple clarification. It is not a qualifier to the previous rule. You might not need it, but beginners do. Otherwise the ramifications of doing streneous action while disabled wouldn't be clear enough.

* Several people have included the SRD section, but while they say they "quote" the SRD, they have intentionally removed the white space between paragraphs in order to make the text look like support for their erroneous position. Please be aware of this fact before you make the mistake of believing healing somehow negates the disabled rule yourself. The SRD contains three separate paragraphs on the disabled condition - by hiding this fact, a clear rule suddenly becomes very ambigous indeed.

* Someone asked if a disabled character with 100 max hp that cast Heal on himself ended up at 99 hp. I answered this in my last post, but perhaps not clearly enough: yes, he does.

* Somebody said the rules increased the risk of a total party kill if Cure Minor Wounds doesn't negate the Disabled condition. But the poster failed to see the simple fact that this is true only if it is the disabled character himself that casts CMW. If my PC cast CMW on your disabled character, he would end up at 1 hp and would be at full efficiency. (Of course, I also agree the whole scenario is highly theoretical with the generous amounts of healing available in the standard game).

* Cure Minor Wounds have a perfectly good use: stabilizing unconscious allies and preventing their deaths until more healing can be applied. The fact you cannot remove the disabled condition from yourself using CMW is hardly enough to recommend boosting the spell.

Bottom line: The position that CMW negates the disabled condition is clearly unsupportable, as another poster (about getting your full action allowance) made clear.

Friendly note: I and others are posting the answer to a rules question as a courtesy to those asking for help. Please do not discourage us by angry and misinformed retorts, and please do not make the situation for the newbies worse by trying to confuse the issue. I won't respond directly to such misguided replies.

Regards,
Zapp