Does Healing Word require a Healing Surge? Forked Thread: Ranger beasts

[Milambus]

Well, from a programming point of view, "and" indicates that BOTH must occur. It's not "or," which no one is implying, or "and/or," which seems to be the the case you're implying.
A and B = both must occur or none occur.
A or B = either, but not both, occur.
A and/or B = both can happen; either can happen; it doesn't really matter.

Since this is not an If statement, I'm not sure that short-circuiting would apply =)

I also seem to recall that some languages would actually process the second part of the AND before the first part to determine if the statement should be short-circuited.

It seems to be that a class power would be more like a function/method than an if statement.

public class Cleric extends playableCharacter {
private function healingWord(playableCharacter target, int bonuses) {
int hp = target.spendHealingSurge();
hp += 1d6;
hp += bonuses;
target.applyHealing(hp);
}
}

But this isn't a programming debate, so lets ignore that =)

 

[the Jester]

Effect: The target can spend a healing surge and regain an additional 1d6 hit points.

The the key word in this rule IMO is "and."

Almost. The key word is actually regain.

"The target can spend a healing surge and regain an additional 1d6 hit points" means that the target has the option to spend a healing surge, and if it does so, it regains an additional 1d6 hit points.

"The target can spend a healing surge and regains an additional 1d6 hit points" means that the target has the option to spend a healing surge; additionally, it regains 1d6 hit points.

 

[Eldorian]

Almost. The key word is actually regain.

"The target can spend a healing surge and regain an additional 1d6 hit points" means that the target has the option to spend a healing surge, and if it does so, it regains an additional 1d6 hit points.

"The target can spend a healing surge and regains an additional 1d6 hit points" means that the target has the option to spend a healing surge; additionally, it regains 1d6 hit points.

Not quite.

"The target can spend a healing surge and regain an additional 1d6 hit points" is the compound of sentences:

The target can spend a healing surge.

The target can regain an additional 1d6 hit points.

"The target can spend a healing surge and regains an additional 1d6 hit points" is the compound of sentences:

The target can spend a healing surge.

The target regains an additional 1d6 hit points.

The conjunction "and" means both are true.

Until reading this thread, I never considered that the power would allow healing without spending a healing surge, mostly because I expect it not to, not because the power actually says you don't.

 

[pemerton]

Almost. The key word is actually regain.

"The target can spend a healing surge and regain an additional 1d6 hit points" means that the target has the option to spend a healing surge, and if it does so, it regains an additional 1d6 hit points.

"The target can spend a healing surge and regains an additional 1d6 hit points" means that the target has the option to spend a healing surge; additionally, it regains 1d6 hit points.

Not quite.

"The target can spend a healing surge and regain an additional 1d6 hit points" is the compound of sentences:

The target can spend a healing surge.

The target can regain an additional 1d6 hit points.

"The target can spend a healing surge and regains an additional 1d6 hit points" is the compound of sentences:

The target can spend a healing surge.

The target regains an additional 1d6 hit points.

"Regain" is the infinitive. It is not necessarily within the scope of a separate "can" clause: we could equally rewrite the sentence as "The targe can spend a healing surge to regain an additional 1d6 hit points", substituting "to" for "and". English grammar is pretty flexible in the way that relationships of dependency can be expressed. But Jester is correct that the use of the infinitive signals that some sort of dependency is being signalled.

The conjunction "and" means both are true.

Not in this sentence. It is an indicator of dependency, much as in the following, said to a friend who comes into your house on a hot day: "You can go to the fridge and get yourself a drink".

A friend who goes to the fridge, looks inside, shuts it again and then fills a glass of water at the tap has not taken your advice.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Yes, we're certain. Again, D&D 4E is written in plain language, not programmerese. If the intent of the power were as you described, it would be worded explicitly to say that: "The target heals 1d6 points of damage and may spend a healing surge." Note that there are powers in which spending a healing surge is an option which is not a requirement for the other effects to take place (e.g. Healing Strike inflicts 2[W] + Str damage whether or not one ally can spend a healing surge), and they're all worded that way: "[Effect happens] and target can spend a healing surge."

This.

Healing word requires the target spend a surge to get any benefit. No surge spent, no benefit.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Hehe 'Arise Dead thread'... well dead topic, I seem to remember a long thread n this before.
I agree with MF, no surge no benefit with the RAW. However I might allow the player to just gain the 1d6 with some good RP excuse or penalty because of it.

 

[Infiniti2000]

But this isn't a programming debate, so lets ignore that =)

It's definitely not a programming debate if you're gonna use Java; and not only that, but use implementation inheritance.

Jokes aside, I can't seem to put my finger on the relevance of this thread. Can you explain why someone would choose not to spend the healing surge if they had one and were injured? If you actually are a programmer, then you should be familiar with the concept of use cases. Unless we have a use case, doesn't that make the topic moot?

 

[Dice4Hire]

Well there was a fighter in my game who had Boundless Endurance up and the paladin kept him to 90% or more of his hit point total for no reason that I could see.

Using dailies to make another character waste a daily is not too swift.

 

[Revinor]

If you are allowed to regain 1d6+wis from healing word without spending a surge, it means that people will not spend any surges for healing outside combat. It will take bit longer, but they heal for free if they have a leader.

Are you sure you want that ?

And, if somebody will come up with elixir which says "You can drink this potion and gain +1 to damage till end of encounter", you will also argue that you don't need to drink it to gain a benefit?

 

[Eldorian]

"Regain" is the infinitive. It is not necessarily within the scope of a separate "can" clause: we could equally rewrite the sentence as "The targe can spend a healing surge to regain an additional 1d6 hit points", substituting "to" for "and". English grammar is pretty flexible in the way that relationships of dependency can be expressed. But Jester is correct that the use of the infinitive signals that some sort of dependency is being signalled.

"The target can spend a healing surge to regain an additional 1d6 hit points" means something considerably different than "The target can spend a healing surge and regain an additional 1d6 hit points". The latter sentence lets you spend a healing surge to gain its normal benefit, and also gain 1d6 additional hit points.

I believe the sentence you're looking for, to mean what you want it to mean, is "the target can spend a healing surge and then regain an additional 1d6 hit points"

Sometimes "and" can mean "then", but when it's uncertain which it should be, the phrase "and then" should be used. Unfortunately, English is such a bloated language that it's hard to write logically consistent rules in it. I bet, for example, Spanish language gaming rules are much easier to understand.


I do believe the intent of the designers was that Healing Word requires an expenditure of a healing surge to provide the extra healing benefit. I'm usually quite good at determining the intent of the rules, so much so that my personal rulings are often made official in latter errata.