Warden L6 Utility "Bears Endurance"

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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.

First, I think you are choosing to apply common sense when the rules make something ridiculous in one instance, but demanding that RAW must be adhered to in other instances where common sense says something else entirely was intended by the designers.

Second, if you wish to argue this by RAW, show me where in the rules Hitting the Ground causes damage. I can find rules for Falling Damage. Bear's Endurance would then interrupt the Fall. Rewinding to the point before you Fall means that the interrupt occurs when you are still at the top of the ledge. If you are one more square along in your movement, you are Falling. That's not before the damage-causing event, that's in the middle of it. And since you would gain hit points before the fall, you will have already moved the maximum number of squares allowed and be unable to move over the cliff edge.

Now, if you'd like to concede that an interrupt can occur during anywhere in the middle of it, before it resolves, then I will concede your point about falling. But then Bear's Endurance should be able to trigger by RAW after one takes damage, but before they fall unconscious.

 

[Nichwee]

I can find rules for Falling Damage. Bear's Endurance would then interrupt the Fall. Rewinding to the point before you Fall means that the interrupt occurs when you are still at the top of the ledge. If you are one more square along in your movement, you are Falling. That's not before the damage-causing event, that's in the middle of it. And since you would gain hit points before the fall, you will have already moved the maximum number of squares allowed and be unable to move over the cliff edge.

But movement of each square is considered a different event (as laid out in the rules on hitting people as they move - for Opportunity Attacks). Thus Bear's Endurance interrupts the square of movement that induces falling damage sufficient to drop you below 0hp. So this is the square of movement that pushes the falling damage above your current hitpoints (at a rate of 1d10 after each 2 squares) and not the first square of vertical movement you do - so you rewind to slightly further up the fall and then reapply the trigger if it is still valid (which it still is) and take the damage.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

But movement of each square is considered a different event (as laid out in the rules on hitting people as they move - for Opportunity Attacks).

You are at best inferring that. This is not an explicit rule. It doesn't actually mention this under Opportunity Attacks in the Compendium. There is a note that Reactions can interrupt movement.

You are applying common sense to the game mechaincs. I agree with you, yet when some try to apply common sense to Bear's Endurance we are told that logic should be thrown out for a scenario where Bear's Endurance is completely negating an attack.

 

[Nichwee]

You are applying common sense to the game mechaincs. I agree with you, yet when some try to apply common sense to Bear's Endurance we are told that logic should be thrown out for a scenario where Bear's Endurance is completely negating an attack.

Well common sense is rarely common. And in this case an interrupt that occurs after it's trigger (when they are said to explicitly occur before them) seems to counter common sense.

Tho I would say "common sense" would suggest this discussion be allowed to die, as neither side is going to do anything more than rehash itself and constantly insult the sense, wisdom, reading skills etc of those on the other side of the arguement - and I feel it covered the point well enough pages ago for anyone to make up their own mind in an informed manner, so little more is gained save using up forum space at this point.

 

[DracoSuave]

meh

wrong:

"feh."

Don't make me rules lawyer it

 

[Gryph]

wrong:

"feh."

Don't make me rules lawyer it

Well played, sir, well played.


(must spread, blah, blah)

 

[KarinsDad]

First, I think you are choosing to apply common sense when the rules make something ridiculous in one instance, but demanding that RAW must be adhered to in other instances where common sense says something else entirely was intended by the designers.

I don't know designer intent in all cases and I opine that you don't know it either. I only know what is written in the rules.

Second, if you wish to argue this by RAW, show me where in the rules Hitting the Ground causes damage. I can find rules for Falling Damage. Bear's Endurance would then interrupt the Fall. Rewinding to the point before you Fall means that the interrupt occurs when you are still at the top of the ledge. If you are one more square along in your movement, you are Falling. That's not before the damage-causing event, that's in the middle of it. And since you would gain hit points before the fall, you will have already moved the maximum number of squares allowed and be unable to move over the cliff edge.

This is a serious counterargument from you? Seriously?

Did you actually read what you wrote here?

Bear's Endurance does interrupt the fall event. No doubt about it. But, once it heals the PC, the fall event trigger is then still resolved. Nothing about the effect of Bear's Endurance changes the fall event trigger and sends the PC back to the top of the fall. The fall still happens. The fall damage still occurs.

The PC falls. The PC hits and drops below zero. The drops below zero trigger occurs. The PC heals pre-resolving the dropping below zero calculation. The PC then takes the falling damage because the trigger event did not prevent it.

Now, if you'd like to concede that an interrupt can occur during anywhere in the middle of it, before it resolves, then I will concede your point about falling. But then Bear's Endurance should be able to trigger by RAW after one takes damage, but before they fall unconscious.

Going over an edge is part of the move action. Falling a single inch, on the other hand, is not. It's a separate event. If a Dragon is Stunned while Hovering, it starts to fall. The action that stunned it is not part of the event of it falling.

Your example is ludicrous because you are combining the move action and the fall event into a single interruptable action when they not. The falling is not part of the movement action. It's a separate event. If you can find some rules that state that falling is part of the action that caused the fall, I'm open to your example. Shy of that, your example is silly and not RAI or RAW.

 

[Istar]

Thanks for clearing that up guys.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I don't know designer intent in all cases and I opine that you don't know it either. I only know what is written in the rules.

I, OTOH, can infer intent from the name and description of the power. I do not feel limited by the letter of the rules.

This is a serious counterargument from you? Seriously?

Your example is ludicrous because you are combining the move action and the fall event into a single interruptable action when they not. The falling is not part of the movement action. It's a separate event. If you can find some rules that state that falling is part of the action that caused the fall, I'm open to your example. Shy of that, your example is silly and not RAI or RAW.

You got me, it is not a serious counterargument. But I find the scenario you and Draco present equally as ludicrous because you are combining the attack with the event of falling below zero hit points. IMO, that is a seperate event. If you can find some rules that state that falling below zero hit points is explicitly part of the creature's action, then I will consider you attack-negating Bear's Endurance example less silly and to fit with RAI.

But you believe you have and all we're going to do is keep telling each other we're wrong, so whatever. What you guys call "Knee-Jerk Reaction" from Customer Service I call "Intuitive Interpretation" and I bet that's how both of you would have ruled Bear's Endurance before this 11 page thread without a second thought to it being wrong.

 

[KarinsDad]

You got me, it is not a serious counterargument. But I find the scenario you and Draco present equally as ludicrous because you are combining the attack with the event of falling below zero hit points. IMO, that is a seperate event. If you can find some rules that state that falling below zero hit points is explicitly part of the creature's action, then I will consider you attack-negating Bear's Endurance example less silly and to fit with RAI.

You don't consider being targeted, being attacked, taking damage, falling below zero, being bloodied, getting hit, being pushed, being stunned, and a wide variety of other game mechanic elements part of the attacking creature's action and interrutable by a power? To me, all of these are results of using the power and I have no rules to handle any of them as a special case. So, I handle them all the same.

I also consider what is actually interrupted vs. all of the abilities of the power. For example, a power that allows a monster to shift and then attack can be interrupted (e.g. by a Shield spell) by disrupting the attack without disrupting the initial shift. The interrupt effect only does what it does and often doesn't negate every single portion of an action.

I think your claim that you are following RAI isn't accurate at all since we really don't know what RAI is. In fact, the designers don't always know what RAI is in these types of corner cases because the rules do not explicitly discuss them. If the rules were clear, we wouldn't have 11 pages of discussion on this.

The only thing I have to go on is that when you handle it your way, you are not interrupting the trigger and I'm pretty sure that interrupting the trigger means that the trigger has only started, but has not yet been resolved.

Your interpretation allows for the PC to actually go below zero hit points right away which doesn't interrupt the trigger at all. If you did this for Combat Challenge, the trigger of the foe shifting away would mean that the foe has actually shifted away and the foe would be out of range of the Fighter's attack.

I think that the RAI and the RAW of immediate interrupts is that you interrupt the trigger, apply the effect, and then see if the trigger is still applicable.