Cure Minor on self when disabled

[ThirdWizard]

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.

I agree with your interprietation of the rules, but I didn't notice any flaming or angryness in this thread. If I missed it I appologise, but this sounded like you don't want people to disagree with your position. Debate should be encouraged, as many interprietations are brought to light, and it can cause less confusion when these details are noticed later and they have already been proven or disproven. I see no reason for anyone to ignore people who disagree with them unless their own position is not easily defended.

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

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!

I'm not so sure. I think it's as if the attack dealt damage and poisoned you, then you cured the damage. This doesn't make it as if you were never damaged or poisoned, just no longer damaged (hp-wise).

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.

But you were. Whereas with the Disabled CMW thing, it's as if you never were.

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.

Remember, it's not just that you aren't disabled anymore, it's that you never were to begin with.

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

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.

Wow. What can I say. :\

You made some good points in that post, but this topic is still under thoughtful debate by people who disagree in good faith. I don't think that any of us can just pronounce that we know the truth and all others are just flaming or trying to confuse newbies.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Okay, for those of you who go along with the "You don't take damage because it's as if you were never Disabled to begin with" point of view (which I am adamantly sure is wrong):

Your argument hinges on the fact that, once I heal myself up to over 0 hit points, the Disabled condition is retoractively removed, such that I now ignore the initial text of, to paraphrase, "if you perform a standard [or other strenuous] action, you take 1 point of damage after it is done."

What happens if, in Round 1, Charlie the Newbie Cleric is brought down to 0 hit points by a lucky bowshot? He's Disabled, right?

So, on his next turn, he takes a single move action to move away from the archer and into cover.

A round passes.

On Charlie's turn, he spontaneously converts his Resistance spell into a Cure Minor Wounds, and heals himself for 1 hit point.

Now, by your reading of the rules, Charlie doesn't take damage because he wasn't even Disabled to begin with.

Why, then, was he limited to a single move action in the round before?

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

Now, by your reading of the rules, Charlie doesn't take damage because he wasn't even Disabled to begin with.

Why, then, was he limited to a single move action in the round before?

Because that limitation occurred during the time he was disabled. In contrast, the SRD specifically states that the hp loss is to be applied after the action. But in the case of healing, once you get to the "after", you've already made it as if you were never disabled.

Healing can interrupt, as it were, the hp loss because it occurs after the healing, but it can't take you back in time. In other words, the healing doesn't make it that you literally were never disabled, it makes it as if you were never disabled. Thus anything that would normally apply after the action no longer would.

 

[KarinsDad]

Why, then, was he limited to a single move action in the round before?

Or even in the current round for that matter.


Actually, what I find a bit amusing about this discussion is that this is at least the fourth time we have discussed this exact same topic over the last 4 years.

If I recall correctly, the Sage was asked a few times and he stuck with the "you take a point after the fact" answer. But, I don't have access to the archives to prove this.

Caliban? You were around for those discussions, do you have the relevant Email?

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I honestly think the "new" line of thought on this is over-complicating the issue.

It's not a retro-active statement. I.E. the fact that you may, at some time, be healed, does not mean that at a particular moment you will never suffer from being Disabled because your Disabled is grandfathered out by a healing that may/may-not occur some time in the future.

What we're saying is ... condition change is an INSTANT change. If Bob trips Larry as part of his Standard/Attack action with Improved Trip he gets a follow-up whallop on Larry, right? This follow-up whallop is at Larry's now-decreased AC because Larry is prone. The Standing/Prone condition change was INSTANT within the space of an action. Bob doesn't have to wait until the end of an action for Larry to get prone, right?

The change between Disabled and Not-Disabled is instant. The healing spell is likewise Instant. Between the Start and the End of the standard action the character has both gained one hp (healing spell) AND has exited Disabled condition.

Once you have exited Disabled (by having more than 0hp) you are no longer disabled as if you never were meaning any LINGERING effects of disabled, I.E. any effects of Disabled that apply AFTER the Standard Action are GONE. They don't apply because they occur AFTER the standard action. It doesn't occur DURING the standard action.

The real question is whether or not the PC then gets a move action, because the limit on actions is part of Disabled and he's no longer disabled and no linger effects follow him. Oddly, I'd say he doesn't, because it doesn't say "after a standard action you cannot take any more actions". The "AFTER" is what makes it a "lingering effect" for me, and that's not a lingering effect, that's a STARTING effect for begining the initiative on a Disabled condition. You get a Standard Action ... if that brings out out of Disabled, then you don't suffer the lingering effects of Disabled, which is losing 1 HP after a standard action. Your next round you start Not-Disabled so can act as if never disabled.



--fje

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

It looks like the "No Damage" defenders are going through some pretty entertaining mental gymnastics to explain that "retroactively" (as in, you never were disabled, uh, this round) doesn't always mean "retroactively" (as in, you never were disabled).

Please, continue on!

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

Or even in the current round for that matter.

Because the round is over by the time you have finished casting the spell.

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

It looks like the "No Damage" defenders are going through some pretty entertaining mental gymnastics to explain that "retroactively" (as in, you never were disabled, uh, this round) doesn't always mean "retroactively" (as in, you never were disabled).

Please, continue on!

At least we're all enjoying ourselves!