When reduced to 0hp, the minotaur PC can strike a blow as an immediate Interrupt. Interrupts can prevent completion of the triggering action, that is how they differ from Reactions. That would mean that if the minotaur kills the person who took him to 0, he never got hit and takes no damage, creating a recursive loop? Or do you treat it as effectively a Reaction, so he still takes the damage?
Focusing on the concept that the II is interrupting the Resolving of an action:
Attacker hits, does damage, drops Minotaur PC to 0 or few hp ...
Minotaur PC uses his II to interrupt the Resolving of what happens at 0 HP.
The way the II
in this case is phrased it is Not interrupting the Hit, it is Not interrupting the damage ...
- The II is interrupting the Resolving of the damage. IE: PC is at or below 0 HP and therefore falls unconscious.
I think this scenario needs to be viewed this way:
Initial Attack:
1.a. Roll to Hit = Hit
1.b. Resolve Hit -- Roll damage
-
2.a. Roll Damage = X damage
2.b. Resolve Damage -- (HP remaining - X damage)
-
3.a. Minotaur drops to 0 or fewer HP
. II - Trigger: Reduced to 0 hp.
. 4.a. Resolve Trigger - make a MBA
. 4.b. Roll to Hit = (in this case assume Hit) Hit
. 4.c. Resolve Hit -- Roll damage
. -
. 5.a. Roll damage = X damage
. 5.b. Resolve Damage -- (HP remaining - X damage) (assume this puts Attacker at or below 0 HP)
. -
. 6.a. Attacker reduced to 0 or fewer HP
. 6.b. >> Resolve Attacker being reduced to 0 or fewer HP = Attacker KO'd
3.b. >> Resolve Minotaur PC being reduced to 0 or fewer HP = Minotaur PC KO'd
-
Steps 4, 5, 6 all occur between 3.a. and 3.b. IE: Minotaur PC going to 0 HP and the effect of what 0 HP means (being KO'd).