Warden L6 Utility "Bears Endurance"

[DracoSuave]

Draco, you are incorrect here because of a small misunderstanding. Immediate Interrupts do not occur before their trigger, they occur before their trigger finishes.

"Interrupts An immediate interrupt jumps in when its trigger occurs, taking place before the trigger finishes. If an interrupt invalidates a triggering action, the triggering action is lost."
-Rules Compendium pg. 195

So with the trigger "When you drop to 0 hit points or fewer", the power doesn't occur before you are hit, or before you take damage, or before you drop below zero hit points. It occurs before the consequences of being below zero hit points apply.

You still can't be below zero and not have dropped below zero. Dropping below zero has happened if you are below zero. There's no space during which you've gone below zero, and not dropped below zero.

Also, if that's the case, then if the power says 'Take blah damage, and the target is stunned' then you couldn't reply because apparely there's a delay between the resolution of this effect and the hit point damage being applied (something you have yet to indicate at all).

I can see your point on the 'before the trigger finishes' but that must occur before the damage is applied. You've either taken the damage and have dropped, or you have not dropped and haven't yet taken the damage. There's no point during the resolution of any damage where you've taken the damage but not reduced your hit points.

None... damage does not follow Hiesenburg's Uncertainty Principle, and it does not behave like Shroedinger's cat.

 

[Gryph]

You still can't be below zero and not have dropped below zero. Dropping below zero has happened if you are below zero. There's no space during which you've gone below zero, and not dropped below zero.

Also, if that's the case, then if the power says 'Take blah damage, and the target is stunned' then you couldn't reply because apparely there's a delay between the resolution of this effect and the hit point damage being applied (something you have yet to indicate at all).

I can see your point on the 'before the trigger finishes' but that must occur before the damage is applied. You've either taken the damage and have dropped, or you have not dropped and haven't yet taken the damage. There's no point during the resolution of any damage where you've taken the damage but not reduced your hit points.

None... damage does not follow Hiesenburg's Uncertainty Principle, and it does not behave like Shroedinger's cat.

Absolutely, if you weren't below zero hit points than my interpretation doesn't work.

Being below zero hit points isn't a condition though it's just a measure of a resource. In the normal course of mechanical resolution, dropping below zero hit points imposes the conditions Unconscious and Dying which in turn have some cascading effects like loss of marks and dropping of sustained effects.

The interrupt then happens after the damage but before dropping below zero HP can apply the Unconscious and Dying conditions.

There is no cat in the box.

 

[DracoSuave]

Absolutely, if you weren't below zero hit points than my interpretation doesn't work.

Being below zero hit points isn't a condition though it's just a measure of a resource. In the normal course of mechanical resolution, dropping below zero hit points imposes the conditions Unconscious and Dying which in turn have some cascading effects like loss of marks and dropping of sustained effects.

The interrupt then happens after the damage but before dropping below zero HP can apply the Unconscious and Dying conditions.

There is no cat in the box.

Except that you're picking and choosing the aspects of dropping below zero that you like, and discarding the ones you don't. You're inventing things like 'below zero but not below zero.'

Notice: Bear's Endurance doesn't trigger on receiving the dying condition either. The same logic you use to say it doesn't happen before the damage step of an attack is the same logic that says it can't happen while you're below zero "but not yet dying". If it were, by your logic, it would have the trigger "When you become dying".

It's a clear case of trying to weasel your way into having your cake and eating it too... you're inventing a period of time between going below zero, and receiving your conditions... which doesn't matter, because you're still executing an interrupt after its trigger (dropping below zero) has resolved, instead of before.

If that period of time exists, then the power can't execute after, and if the period of time does not exist, then the power can't execute after. No logical contingency exists for your interpretation.

The point is... if your interpretation includes 'being below zero hit points' as part of the resolution of an interrupt -triggered- by being put below zero hit points, you cannot, in any good conscience, argue that interrupt his happening before that 'being below zero hit points' has resolved... because if it hadn't resolved, you wouldn't be below zero hit points.

-Free actions- can work that way because they don't interrupt OR react... they happen immediately. Interrupts do not, they work before their trigger. QV Player's Handbook. They've always worked that way.

 

[Gryph]

Except that you're picking and choosing the aspects of dropping below zero that you like, and discarding the ones you don't. You're inventing things like 'below zero but not below zero.'

Notice: Bear's Endurance doesn't trigger on receiving the dying condition either. The same logic you use to say it doesn't happen before the damage step of an attack is the same logic that says it can't happen while you're below zero "but not yet dying". If it were, by your logic, it would have the trigger "When you become dying".

It's a clear case of trying to weasel your way into having your cake and eating it too... you're inventing a period of time between going below zero, and receiving your conditions... which doesn't matter, because you're still executing an interrupt after its trigger (dropping below zero) has resolved, instead of before.

If that period of time exists, then the power can't execute after, and if the period of time does not exist, then the power can't execute after. No logical contingency exists for your interpretation.

The point is... if your interpretation includes 'being below zero hit points' as part of the resolution of an interrupt -triggered- by being put below zero hit points, you cannot, in any good conscience, argue that interrupt his happening before that 'being below zero hit points' has resolved... because if it hadn't resolved, you wouldn't be below zero hit points.

-Free actions- can work that way because they don't interrupt OR react... they happen immediately. Interrupts do not, they work before their trigger. QV Player's Handbook. They've always worked that way.

I have offered up my interpretations of the rules and how this utility functions with in the rules from the perspective of how I would rule the use of the power at my table as a DM. I don't believe "trying to weasel" is part of that interpretation. I assure you I offered up the interpretation in good conscience and, as I have a level 7 Warden in the group I DM for, I will use that interpretation when he uses that power.

I think we have reached the point of impasse in our mutual interpretations of the rules. I believe the sequence of damage, loss of HP and consequences for loss of HP have a couple of seams where an interrupt power can negate some of the consequences without undoing the action that started the sequence.

As I understand what you have posted, you believe that sequence is in fact a single atomic whole and therefore an interrupt has to apply it's effects before the damage is applied.

I think we have both been sufficiently clear in our explanation of our preferred interpretations for anyone else reading this thread to understand the interpretations and make their own ruling.

TLDR
I agree to disagree

 

[DracoSuave]

I get what you're saying... but the trigger of the power in question is based on the measurement of the resource, not on the consequences of that resource's loss.

If those seams exist, and it's a sequence, then in that case, it would be in the order:

Damage
Loss of HP
Consequences of loss of HP

In this case, the trigger is 'Drop below zero' which is, as you put it, a measurement of HP, which means if those seams exist:

Damage
Loss of HP <--- This is the trigger.
Consequences of loss of HP <---- These are consequences of the trigger.

Where you have it is like this:

Damage
Loss of HP <--- Trigger
Bear's Endurance <--- After the trigger
Consequences of Loss of HP

That's the problem with your argument... you have the interrupt after the trigger. Even if those seams exist, as you point out... you still have it post-trigger. That's a reaction not an interrupt. That's why it's not possible.

 

[KarinsDad]

Let's compare this to Shield.

Trigger: You are hit by an attack.
Effect: You gain a +4 power bonus to AC and Reflex until the end of your next turn.

For Shield to work as we all believe that it does, the AC and Reflex of the PC increases BEFORE the hit. The roll to hit is rechecked and if it misses, it misses.

Otherwise, Shield is (mostly) useless. The trigger itself (getting hit) is totally negated because the effect of the power works BEFORE the trigger occurs. Not AFTER, BEFORE.

Let's compare to Bear's Endurance:

Trigger: You drop to 0 hit points or fewer
Effect: You regain hit points as if you had spent a healing surge.

This can retroactively do a lot of stuff, just like with Shield.

The healing doesn't negate dropping to zero automatically. It does it by adding hit points and then figuring out again if the PC drops to zero. Just like with Shield where the AC and Reflex of the effect is added before recalculating the result of the trigger.


You cannot pick and choose how to apply the rule. It cannot work before the trigger of a hit with Shield and after the trigger of dropping to 0 with Bear's Endurance. It's not an Immediate Reaction, it's an Immediate Interrupt.

Sorry people, but Draco is correct.

The PC is not hit in the first case and the PC is not damaged in the second case until after the immediate interrupt is resolved.

If the AC with the Shield addition is not high enough, the PC is still hit.

If the hit points with the Bear's Endurance addition is not high enough, the PC is still at or below zero.

By using the alternative interpretation, you are changing this from an immediate interrupt to an immediate reaction.


And note: If a monster had a "+1 to hit if the PC is bloodied", and the PC is bloodied, and the monster hits on the number, and the PC uses Bear's Endurance, and the PC is no longer bloodied because of it, the PC is no longer even hit by the monster.

Yes, this is not intuitive, but again, it is no different than Shield.

The player decides to use Bear's Endurance.
The PC gains hit points and is no longer bloodied.
Because the PC is no longer bloodied, the attack no longer even hits.

Why does this work?

Because what if we had a power called Angel's Teleport as an Immediate Interrupt.

Trigger: You drop to 0 hit points or fewer
Effect: You teleport up to 5 squares.

If this is an Immediate Reaction, then the PC would teleport after dropping below zero. If this is an Immediate Interrupt, then the PC would teleport before dropping below zero and since he is not in range of the (presumably) melee attack, then the PC doesn't even get hit.

Same for the monster has +1 to hit when the PC is bloodied example.

The interrupt changes the state of the entire action.

Yes, this is non-intuitive, but if it is not ruled this way, then the power becomes an immediate reaction instead of an immediate interrupt.

 

[Gryph]

I get what you're saying... but the trigger of the power in question is based on the measurement of the resource, not on the consequences of that resource's loss.

If those seams exist, and it's a sequence, then in that case, it would be in the order:

Damage
Loss of HP
Consequences of loss of HP

In this case, the trigger is 'Drop below zero' which is, as you put it, a measurement of HP, which means if those seams exist:

Damage
Loss of HP <--- This is the trigger.
Consequences of loss of HP <---- These are consequences of the trigger.

Where you have it is like this:

Damage
Loss of HP <--- Trigger
Bear's Endurance <--- After the trigger
Consequences of Loss of HP

That's the problem with your argument... you have the interrupt after the trigger. Even if those seams exist, as you point out... you still have it post-trigger. That's a reaction not an interrupt. That's why it's not possible.

Not quite. I am saying the normal sequence is:

Start I am at zero or lower HP resolution
Apply Unconscious Condition
Apply Dying Condition
End I am at zero hp or lower resolution

So the extended sequence of events is:

Hit by attack
Start Damage resolution
Calculate HP loss
subtract hp from current total
end damage resolution
start At zero or lower hp resolution
Start Bear's Endurance
Apply Healing Surge
End Bear's Endurance
No longer below zero hp so end zero hp resolution


Interrupts don't roll back time, they suspend the triggering event until the interrupt resolves and then finish the resolution of the triggering effect. If the effect of the interrupt invalidates the conditions required for the triggering event to have happened then the triggering event is voided instead of finished.

 

[Gryph]

Let's compare this to Shield.

Trigger: You are hit by an attack.
Effect: You gain a +4 power bonus to AC and Reflex until the end of your next turn.

For Shield to work as we all believe that it does, the AC and Reflex of the PC increases BEFORE the hit. The roll to hit is rechecked and if it misses, it misses.

Or,

Attack roll exceeds AC resulting in a hit
Start hit resolution
Shield Interrupt resolution
AC = AC + 4
End Shield resolution
Attack roll no longer exceeds AC, void hit resolution

Interrupt goes off before the hit finishes resolving without pesky, "we went back in time" narrative.

Again interrupts by the wording in the compendium occur after the triggering event has started and before it finishes resolving. They don't turn back the clock.

 

[KarinsDad]

Or,

Attack roll exceeds AC resulting in a hit
Start hit resolution
Shield Interrupt resolution
AC = AC + 4
End Shield resolution
Attack roll no longer exceeds AC, void hit resolution

Interrupt goes off before the hit finishes resolving without pesky, "we went back in time" narrative.

Again interrupts by the wording in the compendium occur after the triggering event has started and before it finishes resolving. They don't turn back the clock.

Of course immediate interrupts turn back the clock. They turn back the clock for the players at the table. The DM has to re-adjudicate the situation because the situation has changed. If the hit no longer hits, then it IS turning back the clock. Not from the perspective of the PC, but from the perspective of the players.


Void to hit resolution. How is this calculated? The equation is used again to calculate to hit. Previous to hit plus previous pluses is compared to previous AC plus the II effect +4 bonus to AC.

Void drop to zero resolution. How is this calculated? The equation is used again to calculate damage. Previous damage done from previous attack is subtracted from previous hit points plus the II effect additional hit points.

You cannot change how you adjudicate the II from one to the other and state that you are correct.

Either you re-calculate how the trigger was determined in every case, or you are not being consistent and you are changing one example from an II to an IR.

Sorry dude, but your method cannot be called an immediate interrupt if you do the healing after the trigger is already set in stone. You have to re-calculate if the equation(s) to get to the trigger based on the effect of the interrupt and see if the trigger is still applicable or not.


"If an interrupt invalidates a triggering action, that action is lost." What does this mean? It means that the to hit roll still has to hit. It means that the target still has to be in range. It means that the attacker still has to be capable of making the attack. An action is an action. Every part of the action has to still be applicable for the action to be resolved. The interrupt invalidates the entire action if it invalidates any part of the action (to hit, damage, range, valid target), it does not invalidate just a small piece of the action.

If any of this changes because of the interrupt, it interrupts the attack. That's why the "+1 to hit bloodied foe" example negates the attack. The foe no longer gets the +1 to hit because his foe is no longer bloodied. The scenario for which the action was being used is no longer the same.


Ask yourself the following question. What happens with the following immediate interrupts?

Trigger: You are hit by an attack
Effect: The attacking foe is stunned until the end of your next turn.

Trigger: You drop to 0 hit points or fewer
Effect: The attacking foe is stunned until the end of your next turn.

Why would the first one completely negate the attack and the second one not completely negate the attack? Give the explicit rules quote to support your answer, don't just make it up.


The trigger "You drop to 0 hit points or fewer" is not set in stone. It's determined by the result of the immediate interrupt, just like "You are hit by an attack" is not set in stone.

 

[S'mon]

It's funny (as someone who teaches Law for a living), because here we are arguing like lawyers in the High Court, while IMO the designers themselves will often use "interrupt" and "reaction" and the triggering-condition wording in a slapdash manner; far more effort is spent interpreting what the RAW mean (and occasionally what they intended) than was ever spent writing the damn stuff.