Warden L6 Utility "Bears Endurance"

[Gryph]

As soon as you drop your hit points the trigger has finished.

And we are back to where we were a page ago.

Show me the rule that says taking damage, dropping below zero hit points, applying unconscious, applying dying (and helpless and falling prone) all happen at the same time.

It needs to counter the death and dying rule that says "When you drop to zero or fewer hit points you become unconscious and dying". That rule pretty clearly says to me that the Unconscious and Dying conditions are caused by dropping below zero hit points so they are both 1). part of resolving dropping below zero hit points and 2). happen after dropping below zero hit points.

So no, as soon as you drop your hit point the trigger has not finished.

 

[nikadeemus327]

So no, as soon as you drop your hit point the trigger has not finished.

Yes it has. All of these other things you talk about, unconscious, falling prone, etc, etc, are not the trigger. Dropping your hit points is the trigger and nothing else. This is the part you fail to understand. This is the idea you keep conflating with a bunch of other stuff.

Once you drop your hit points the trigger is done. Other things may happen in response to that trigger completing but the trigger has finished.

The only way you can do something before the trigger is finished is to execute bear's endurance before damage is applied.

 

[Gryph]

Yes it has. All of these other things you talk about, unconscious, falling prone, etc, etc, are not the trigger. Dropping your hit points is the trigger and nothing else. This is the part you fail to understand. This is the idea you keep conflating with a bunch of other stuff.

Once you drop your hit points the trigger is done. Other things may happen in response to that trigger completing but the trigger has finished.

The only way you can do something before the trigger is finished is to execute bear's endurance before damage is applied.

Correct, they are not the trigger, but the trigger isn't complete until they happen.

Immediate Interrupts do not grant any rule authority to perform an action before the trigger happens.

So if the only way to interrupt drop to zero or fewer hit points is to perform an action before the damage is applied, that trigger cannot be interrupted.

 

[nikadeemus327]

Immediate Interrupts do not grant any rule authority to perform an action before the trigger happens.

And it doesn't grant any rule authority to perform an action after the trigger happens.

Your method is completely indistinguishable from immediate reactions.

 

[Gryph]

And it doesn't grant any rule authority to perform an action after the trigger happens.

Your method is completely indistinguishable from immediate reactions.

It grants explicit authority to perform the action after the trigger has happened and before the trigger has finished. You haven't successfully made the case that writing down a new hit point total on your character sheet is the sum total of the resolution of dropping to zero hit points or less.

and your method is still a violation of the rules.

 

[KarinsDad]

A warden with 50 maximum hit points is currently at 25 hit points. An ally uses a power that allows the warden to move up to his speed as a free action. The warden has a magic item that grants him +1 speed when bloodied (we'll say Speed 7). The warden moves exactly 7 squares away from where he started. The last square is a precipice leading to a 30-foot fall. The warden thinks he can take the fall, so continues. The DM rolls max damage, 30. Since the warden is now below zero hit points he triggers Bear's Endurance.

Under the interpretation of those who believe an attack can be negated by Bear's Endurance the damage-causing action (moving over a cliff) is interrupted by the healing, putting the warden at 37 hit points. But now that he isn't bloodied he can only move 6 squares and thus cannot fall over the ledge.

There is a difference between a single attack action and an action that includes movement of many squares. There is such a distinct difference between the two that the immediate reaction rules explicitly call out the ability to react to the movement of individual squares. It's pretty clear that movement is an action that has to be dissected into individual components where interrupting only interrupts the last square of movement. Many other actions, though, are nearly instantaneous and make sense as being interruptable for the entire action.


Although amusing, your example here does not negate the overall event.

The movement action did NOT cause the damage. The movement action completely finished at the top of the cliff. The falling caused the damage. It is a different event and not part of the movement action, hence, the PC heals the damage of the hitting the ground event that he interrupted and it does not affect the previous movement action that ended at the moment the PC went over the cliff.

Awesome try though.

 

[KarinsDad]

Now reread the rule for Immediate Interrupts.

They act when the trigger arises and before the trigger finishes. The rule does not say they act before the trigger arises.

The rules also do not say that any portion of a trigger has already occurred.

For example, you consider the Shield spell to modify the resolution of "you are hit". You haven't actually been hit yet until the trigger effect resolves. The trigger hasn't yet technically happened.

I consider the Bear's Endurance spell to modify the resolution of "you drop below zero hit points". You haven't actually dropped below zero yet until the trigger effect resolves. The trigger hasn't yet technically happened because the trigger is being interrupted.

Same for Combat Challenge. The foe technically has not left his square or attacked yet. The trigger itself is interrupted. He hasn't partially left his square or partially attacked. The trigger itself starts, but has ZERO rules effect implemented quite yet. It's as if it has not yet started at all.

The problem with your rules interpretation is that you are dropping the PC to zero hit points BEFORE the interrupt occurs. You are not doing this for Shield or Combat Challenge or any other immediate interrupt.

You are saying that the PC has already dropped below zero hit points. The trigger itself has already happened (or partially happened).

You are not saying that the PC with Shield has already been hit.

You are not saying that the NPC with Combat Challenge has already shifted out of his square.

With Angelic Intercession, the ally is not yet hit, the interrupt occurs and the Paladin is hit instead.

Weave through the Fray is an excellent example because it illustrates how your interpretation is not consistent.

Trigger: An enemy moves adjacent to you
Effect: You can shift a number of squares equal to your Wisdom
modifier.

According to your interpretation, the enemy is already in the square next to the PC when the PC shifts. This is set in stone and the effect of the interrupt cannot stop it. The move into the adjacent square has already happened.

According to my interpretation, the enemy starts to move into the square adjacent to the PC and the PC can shift into that square and prevent the enemy from going there. The trigger hasn't yet been resolved and hasn't yet completed. It can be negated, partially or wholly.

For your interpretation to be correct, this power would have to be an immediate reaction. The foe moves into the square. Then the PC can shift and he cannot move into that square cause the foe is already there.


This is the difference between our interpretation. The trigger has started in my interpretation, but it hasn't actually yet happened and the entire trigger can be negated if the effect of the interrupt is capable of doing that.

In your interpretation, sometimes the trigger hasn't really occurred yet and in other cases, it has partially or wholly happened already.

That's why your interpretation is inconsistent. The trigger has already happened in your interpretation and sometimes you back it up and allow it to not happen and other times, you don't.

By allowing the trigger to partially occur, you are not allowing the action or event to truly be interrupted.

 

[Gryph]

The rules also do not say that any portion of a trigger has already occurred.

RC Page 195 Heading: Triggered Actions
Whatever the type of an action, if it has a trigger, it cannot be used unless the trigger occurs. For instance, a wizard's shield power is triggered by the wizard being hit. Only when that trigger occurs does the wizard have the option of using the power. /end quote.

So you are honestly trying to assert that the rules do not say that any portion of a trigger has already occurred? I don't know the above quote could be any clearer that the trigger has to occur before you can use a triggered action.

For example, you consider the Shield spell to modify the resolution of "you are hit". You haven't actually been hit yet until the trigger effect resolves. The trigger hasn't yet technically happened.

Let's look to the rules for attack resolution shall we?

RC Page 214, Heading: Making Attacks
<snipped some general verbiage about adventurers having different attacks and they usually use a Standard Action> Whatever type of attack power a creature uses, the process for making an attack is almost always the same.

1. Choose an attack power, keeping in mind the rules for its type.

2. Choose targets. Each target must be within the power's range and must be within line of effect. See "Choosing Targets," page 105, for how to determine whether a creature can be targeted by a power.

3. Make an attack roll, rolling a d20 and adding the appropriate bonuses and penalties.

4. Compare the attack roll's result to the target's defense. The attack specifies what defense to check. If the result is equal to the specified defense or higher, the attack hits the target. Otherwise it misses. However, (auto hit and auto miss verbiage)

5. When an attack hits, it usually deals damage, and many attacks produce some other effect, such as forced movement or a condition. An attack power's description specifies what happens on a hit. Most attack powers do nothing on a miss, but some specify an effect, such as half damage, on a miss.

6. (multiple target handling) /end quote

So, from this we are told several things. There are multiple steps to resolving an attack. So an interrupt could jump in at a number of different places during an attack since the steps are discrete.

Now take a close look at step 4 and step 5. Step 4 describes the roll and the check to defenses and tells us the condition for a hit. Step 5 tells us to read the attacks power to determine how to resolve the hit. So the trigger, "You are hit" occurs at step 4. If the triggered action is interrupt, like say Shield, we can take a quick look at the rule for Immediate Interrupts to see how that triggered action is going to interact.

RC page 195 Heading: Immediate Actions

Interrupts An immediate interrupt jumps in when its trigger occurs, taking place before the trigger finishes. (we'll come back to the action lost portion in a minute).

Since the attack power description tells us how to resolve the hit and that's step 5 of the attack process; when step 4 indicates a hit, Shield can trigger, jumping in before we move on to step 5, resolve the powers hit description. Right at this moment we have an attack roll and a new defense value. Here's where we come back to the lost action part

"If an interrupt invalidates a triggering action, the triggering action is lost."

How does this effect Shield? glad you asked. Remember above we jumped in when the roll was compared to the defense and was ruled a hit (step 4) but we interrupted so nothing else in the attack or hit resolution has happened until Shield is finished with its work. What does that mean? Well, if the attack roll is no longer equal to or greater than the wizard's defense then the hit is no longer a hit.

Note we did not go back and re-roll the attack, we are still working in the space where the trigger has occurred, as the rule for triggered actions specifies.

So, what about that action lost thing? Since the wizard is now missed does that mean the action is lost? Well, maybe yes, maybe no. The interrupt now being finished the attack continues (the wizard is still a valid target). If the attack power description only specifies a hit effect then the attack is lost at this point. If the attack power has a miss effect or an effect that is independent of a hit, then the wizard will still be affected by those portions of the attack.

I consider the Bear's Endurance spell to modify the resolution of "you drop below zero hit points". You haven't actually dropped below zero yet until the trigger effect resolves. The trigger hasn't yet technically happened because the trigger is being interrupted.

As do I. By the rule for triggered actions, the trigger has to occur for a triggered action to be enabled. So you actually have to have zero or fewer hit points to use the utility. I have post more times than I care to count my contention that the conditions for this state are part of the resolution, I won't type the whole thing out again.

Because, by rule, the trigger has to occur to use the triggered power. The healing can not happen before you are below zero hp. There is no wiggle in the wording of the rule that lets you move the triggered action to a point just before the trigger has occurred.

Same for Combat Challenge. The foe technically has not left his square or attacked yet. The trigger itself is interrupted. He hasn't partially left his square or partially attacked. The trigger itself starts, but has ZERO rules effect implemented quite yet. It's as if it has not yet started at all.

The attack is easy peasy. As soon as an enemy declares your ally as a target in step 2 above, then they have been attacked. The fighter makes his MBA before the attack roll is made. If he kills the enemy, or can modify his MBA to make the ally an invalid target of the attack the action will be lost.

Shift is a little more interesting. All movements except teleports have to traverse all of the terrain between the starting and ending point of the movement. So conceptually, there is 5 feet of ground being travelled by the shift. So the enemy starts to move over the 5 feet and the Fighter attacks him before he gets to his end point. Triggers occur, etc, see above. If the Fighter kills the enemy or he can modify his MBA to otherwise invalidate the shift (like a weapon that lets immobilize on hit), then the shift action will be lost. Otherwise the enemy will finish his shift after the attack.

The problem with your rules interpretation is that you are dropping the PC to zero hit points BEFORE the interrupt occurs. You are not doing this for Shield or Combat Challenge or any other immediate interrupt.

Because the rules for triggered actions say they do. The problem with your interpretation is you are ignoring the rule.

You are saying that the PC has already dropped below zero hit points. The trigger itself has already happened (or partially happened).

The trigger has to occur for a triggered action to be legal.

You are not saying that the PC with Shield has already been hit.

See my exhaustive description above with rules quotes. This sentence of yours is just not true.

You are not saying that the NPC with Combat Challenge has already shifted out of his square.

This is closer, but the trigger is a marked enemy adjacent to you shifts, not a marked enemy adjacent to you shifted. So as I said above, the enemy starts the shift, gets hit, finishes the shift.

With Angelic Intercession, the ally is not yet hit, the interrupt occurs and the Paladin is hit instead.

I don't really want to go look up this power. I've certainly never posted about it in this thread, so you have no idea how I would rule it.

Weave through the Fray is an excellent example because it illustrates how your interpretation is not consistent.

Trigger: An enemy moves adjacent to you
Effect: You can shift a number of squares equal to your Wisdom
modifier.

According to your interpretation, the enemy is already in the square next to the PC when the PC shifts. This is set in stone and the effect of the interrupt cannot stop it. The move into the adjacent square has already happened.

According to my interpretation, the enemy starts to move into the square adjacent to the PC and the PC can shift into that square and prevent the enemy from going there. The trigger hasn't yet been resolved and hasn't yet completed. It can be negated, partially or wholly.

For your interpretation to be correct, this power would have to be an immediate reaction. The foe moves into the square. Then the PC can shift and he cannot move into that square cause the foe is already there.

This one is very interesting, it honestly would never have occurred to me to shift into the square the enemy was moving into. But you are right, the trigger moves adjacent is too specific, I wouldn't let a player shift into the square the enemy was going to move into because he wouldn't be adjacent yet. This is different then Combat Challenge, frankly because the trigger is very different.

It is an interrupt because the enemies movement into an adjacent square has no idea if the enemy has finished movement. So enemy moves next to you, you shift away, enemy keeps moving if he has move speed left. Still not a reaction.

This is the difference between our interpretation. The trigger has started in my interpretation, but it hasn't actually yet happened and the entire trigger can be negated if the effect of the interrupt is capable of doing that.

In your interpretation of Bear's Endurance (healing before taking damage), the trigger has not occurred, it hasn't even started before you take damage. The rules for triggered actions will not let you use the utility before you take damage.

In your interpretation, sometimes the trigger hasn't really occurred yet and in other cases, it has partially or wholly happened already.

This is just a lie. I have repeatedly explained how all of my rulings start when the trigger occurs, not before, not partially. You are not countering my explanations, you are simply lying about what I've been posting.

That's why your interpretation is inconsistent. The trigger has already happened in your interpretation and sometimes you back it up and allow it to not happen and other times, you don't.

By allowing the trigger to partially occur, you are not allowing the action or event to truly be interrupted.

. Your ruling on Bear's Endurance is not an interrupt. When you want to explain your reasoning in detail with rules support, instead of lying about what I've posted in this thread and making unsupported and erroneous assertions; I'll respond to your posts. Until then, meh.

 

[KarinsDad]

RC Page 195 Heading: Triggered Actions
Whatever the type of an action, if it has a trigger, it cannot be used unless the trigger occurs. For instance, a wizard's shield power is triggered by the wizard being hit. Only when that trigger occurs does the wizard have the option of using the power. /end quote.

So you are honestly trying to assert that the rules do not say that any portion of a trigger has already occurred? I don't know the above quote could be any clearer that the trigger has to occur before you can use a triggered action.

Sorry, I don't have my copy of RC available (I'm in the process of moving) and cannot verify that some other set of rules don't qualify the rules you quoted.

This one is very interesting, it honestly would never have occurred to me to shift into the square the enemy was moving into. But you are right, the trigger moves adjacent is too specific, I wouldn't let a player shift into the square the enemy was going to move into because he wouldn't be adjacent yet. This is different then Combat Challenge, frankly because the trigger is very different.

It is an interrupt because the enemies movement into an adjacent square has no idea if the enemy has finished movement. So enemy moves next to you, you shift away, enemy keeps moving if he has move speed left. Still not a reaction.

Precisely, it's not quite an immediate reaction. It's in that gray area of "a third type of interrupt" that I mentioned earlier where some portion of the game mechanics of the trigger have partially occurred with your interpretation. Enough so that a PC cannot immediate interrupt it and prevent the NPC from moving into the adjacent square.

Unlike "to hit" where the hit can be totally interrupted. The trigger itself has not actually occurred yet. That's still to be determined.


Take the following case:

R.EF

R is the ranger with Weave Through the Fray. E is the enemy. F is the Fighter with Combat Challenge.

E shifts into the square next to the Ranger.

With your interpretation, E has not actually shifted into the square next to the Ranger, the Fighter's interrupt occurs. E then completely moves into the square next to the Ranger. E has totally shifted into the square, then the Ranger's interrupt occurs.

RE.F and then the Ranger shifts.

With my interpretation, the Ranger could interrupt the enemy's shift at the same instance that the Fighter can and we have:

REF

Both interrupts occur because the enemy started to move adjacent, but didn't quite get into the square when both immediate interrupts fire off.

Just like with the shift, the enemy starts to move when moving adjacent and that movement is interrupted with my interpretation.


Your interpretation is that "gray third type of interrupt" I mentioned earlier in the thread where the trigger completely or partially resolves.

The enemy actually gets into the square next to the Ranger, so the Ranger cannot interrupt that movement at all.

My interpretation is consistent. Your interpretation sometimes completely stops the trigger from happening at all (Shield, Combat Challenge) and then determines if the trigger still happens after applying the effect of the interrupt, and sometimes lets part or all of the trigger happen (Bear's Endurance, Weave Through the Fray), and then applies the effects of the interrupt after applying part or all of the trigger first.

You pick and chose how to interpret the rule "it cannot be used unless the trigger occurs" based on which trigger that we are talking about.

You can quote rules until you are blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that you change how you interpret the rule on a case by case basis. I don't.

The trigger always occurs with respect to allowing an interrupt, but always does NOTHING with respect to game mechanics in my interpretation. The enemy has not actually shifted into the adjacent square, but the DM has declared that he is going to do so, so mechanically, the enemy is still in the same square he started in. Both the Ranger and Fighter declare interrupts, so the Ranger shifts and the Fighter attacks.

You allow the game mechanics to actually apply sometimes and don't allow it to do so others.

Now, there are no rules (TMK) on which interrupt occurs first. The easiest way is based on which player declares first. If the Ranger player declares first, then the Ranger shifts, the Fighter attacks and gets CA, the enemy cannot move and does nothing. If the Fighter player declares first, then the Fighter attacks and does not get CA, the Ranger shifts, the enemy cannot move and does nothing.


Now, to throw a third monkey wrench into the discussion.

R.EF

Same scenario, but the Ranger uses Answer with Steel instead (i.e. attack when enemy moves adjacent).

You could argue that my interpretation is inconsistent because the enemy has not quite yet left the square and the Ranger still attacks, even though the foe is out of range. You'd be wrong, but it's easy to come up with the thought that this is an issue.

It is not an issue. Specific rules trump general rules. It does not matter that the enemy hasn't game mechanically yet left the square.

There are many immediate interrupts that are illegal based on other rules. That does not matter. The II power trumps the general rules. Another example: Martyr’s Blessing, Punish the Assailant, Angelic Intercession. All of these allow the PC to get hit instead of an ally, even if the PC is not in range of the attack. Specific trumps general. The interrupt states that the PC is hit instead, so the PC is hit instead. End of discussion.

Answer with Steel states that the enemy moving adjacent is attacked, so he is attacked. Even though with my interpretation, the Enemy hasn't quite gotten into that square yet. If the Ranger kills the enemy, the enemy is dead two squares away because the Ranger interrupted the movement and the movement never actually happened. Just like with Shield, the Wizard interrupted the hit and the hit never actually happened.

With my interpretation, the action, event, or condition that triggered the interrupt can be prevented. In this example and your interpretation, it cannot. The enemy first moves next to the Ranger, the enemy dies, and the enemy falls next to the Ranger. Why? Because with your interpretation, the movement that triggered the interrupt cannot actually be interrupted.


Sorry dude, but if you are not going to apply the rules the same way every time, then your interpretation is flawed.

The trigger "you are hit" occurs, but any game mechanics (including the actual to hit calculation) of "you are hit" do not occur until after the interrupt is resolved. The trigger "the foe shifts" occurs, but any game mechanics (including the actual movement) of "the foe shifts" do not occur until after the interrupt is resolved. The trigger "the foe moves adjacent" occurs, but any game mechanics (including the actual movement) of "the foe moves adjacent" do not occur until after the interrupt is resolved. The trigger "the PC drops below zero hits" occurs, but any game mechanics (including the actual dropping below zero) of "the PC drops below zero hits" do not occur until after the interrupt is resolved.


The trigger occurs according to the rules, but it does not resolve. No portion of the trigger actually happens. It just starts to happen. One cannot pick and choose which portions of the trigger to apply and which ones to not apply.

That is what you are doing and that is why your interpretation is flawed and incorrect. You are not allowing the trigger to 100% completely be interrupted in every single case and then figuring out after the effect of the interrupt if the trigger still occurs afterwards. I am.

 

[Gryph]

meh