Warden L6 Utility "Bears Endurance"

[DracoSuave]

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.

You still have the interrupt occuring after the trigger has finished. If you are below zero, you have already dropped below zero. Dropping below zero has finished, you have already done this, and thus, you are not interrupting dropping below zero.

You cannot be below zero when you resolve Bear's Endurance, otherwise it is happening after the trigger.

Had the trigger been you are rendered unconscious or dying then you'd have a point... but you're dealing with stuff as if dropping to zero is in the past, which is not how interrupts work.

Interrupts DO 'turn back time' for the players at the table. They always resolve 'interrupt, trigger' not 'trigger, interrupt.' For Bear's Endurance to be viable the way you've interpreted it, it must be a free action, which can occur in the middle like that.

 

[DarkLord Of DForce]

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.

<snipped>

Now, most of you here absolutely know the rules better than I ever will. Full acknowledged, and I'm grateful for all the experts here. Sure have helped me a lot in the last couple of years.

Now with that said, and what admittedly limited understanding of the rules I have, I'd have to change your statement before I could agree with it. I'd have to take this:

"For Shield to work as we all believe that it does, the AC and Reflex of the PC increases BEFORE the hit"

To this:

For Shield to work as we all believe that it does, the AC and Reflex of the PC increases BEFORE the hit *resolves*.

For me the trigger has happened, but not resolved, the interrupt happens, changes the circumstances, then the trigger now tries to finish resolving, only to find that indeed, things have changed.

Does that make sense to anyone?

Okay, I'll go back to my previously self-appointed lurker mode and stay out of the experts way.

 

[KarinsDad]

Now, most of you here absolutely know the rules better than I ever will. Full acknowledged, and I'm grateful for all the experts here. Sure have helped me a lot in the last couple of years.

Now with that said, and what admittedly limited understanding of the rules I have, I'd have to change your statement before I could agree with it. I'd have to take this:

"For Shield to work as we all believe that it does, the AC and Reflex of the PC increases BEFORE the hit"

To this:

For Shield to work as we all believe that it does, the AC and Reflex of the PC increases BEFORE the hit *resolves*.

For me the trigger has happened, but not resolved, the interrupt happens, changes the circumstances, then the trigger now tries to finish resolving, only to find that indeed, things have changed.

Does that make sense to anyone?

Okay, I'll go back to my previously self-appointed lurker mode and stay out of the experts way.

I'm not an expert. But, I don't see a big difference between what you wrote and what I wrote. To me, the entire action is considered for an immediate interrupt, not bits and pieces.

The interrupt occurs. It changes the entire action. The entire action is reviewed to see if the situation has changed enough to modify or even negate the action.

From the player's perspective, all of this now happens before any single portion of the resolution of any individual piece of the action.

If the interrupt teleports the PC, the range of the attack or the LOE is no longer applicable. Hence, the attack fails.

If the interrupt adds damage resistance to the PC, the amount of damage decreases. This could change the state of the PC. For example, from bloodied after damage to not bloodied after damage and hence, the NPC's "if this bloodies the target, xyz happens" no longer occurs.

If the interrupt of a teleport triggers on dropping to 0 hit points or the interrupt of a teleport triggers on getting hit, it doesn't matter. The teleport interrupts the attack and the trigger never even happens because from the PC's perspective, the PC teleported before the attacking action occurred.

This concept that we dissect the action into a bunch of tiny pieces and then figure out which piece and only which piece was affected doesn't make sense.

The only thing that makes sense is to consider the entire action as interrupted. Start it all over again, but add in the effect of the interrupt power before figuring it all out again.

That is the only consistent way to handle it and the only way that prevents a lot of different mid-action interpretation variations.

 

[Gryph]

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.

From a practical standpoint at the table, I agree. I was referring to character/narrative view of not turning back time

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.

What happens when you are hit?

You resolve the effects of being hit (calculate and apply damage, apply riders, etc).

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. From the rules compendium page 195.

The first sentence seems pretty clear to me that interrupts happen after the triggering event has happened. It then "jumps in" suspending the resolution of the trigger.

To me the second sentence means, after the interrupt is finished, reevaluate the trigger, if it is no longer valid because of the interrupt effect, the triggering action is lost.

So at the table Shield looks like this:

DM: The Ogre bashes you with his club (rolls) 22 vs AC, I believe that hits. (starts to roll damage to resolve the hit)

Wizard PC: I'm going to use Shield my AC is now 23

DM: Ok, your Shield manifests absorbing the Ogre's blow (last bit is pure narrative fluff).

If you believe that comparing the attack to defense is the completion of resolving "You are hit" then your interpretation is correct and the Interrupt has to happen before the trigger. I believe the verbiage of the interrupt rule quoted above requires that we shoehorn an interrupt in between the trigger occurrence and the effects of that occurrence. Play it how ever you like at your table.

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.

Page 215 of the Compendium: (enumerated steps of making an attack)

5. When an attacks 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.

So, the consequences of taking the damage, unless specified by the attack's power description, are not part of resolving the attack. Therefore the trigger "you drop to 0 hit points or fewer" happens after the attack has finished resolving and it can't invalidate the attack. You are dying and your opponent is stunned.

If the trigger were "you take damage" then the attack power, which specifies the damage in its description, would not have finished resolving so the interrupt would stun the opponent, and the stun would invalidate the attack, because a stunned creature can't take an action.

Page 260 of the Compendium (Dying and Death)

Dying: When an adventurer's hit points drop to 0 or fewer, he or she falls unconscious and is dying.

This reads to me as a clear event and resolution sequence. You drop to 0 or fewer hit points, you fall unconscious, you are dying.

With You drop to 0 or fewer hit points as a trigger, the interrupt fits into the sequence between dropping to 0 or fewer hit points and you fall unconscious. If the result of the trigger is you are no longer below zero hit points you don't fall unconscious.

Again, feel free to interpret the above rules differently but stop telling me my interpretation is wrong. It is a perfectly valid interpretation of the quoted rules.

 

[Gryph]

<snip>
This concept that we dissect the action into a bunch of tiny pieces and then figure out which piece and only which piece was affected doesn't make sense.

The only thing that makes sense is to consider the entire action as interrupted. Start it all over again, but add in the effect of the interrupt power before figuring it all out again.

That is the only consistent way to handle it and the only way that prevents a lot of different mid-action interpretation variations.

From a design standpoint I completely agree with this. I think the mechanics of Immediate Interrupts are fine in a game like Magic, but are a pain in the rump in an rpg.

Unfortunately, I think the rules as written for interrupts require that you dissect the action into tiny pieces to resolve them as written.

I would have preferred all Immediates to be Free actions with narrowly worded triggers.

 

[KarinsDad]

What happens when you are hit?

You resolve the effects of being hit (calculate and apply damage, apply riders, etc).

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. From the rules compendium page 195.

The first sentence seems pretty clear to me that interrupts happen after the triggering event has happened. It then "jumps in" suspending the resolution of the trigger.

No, in the case of "you are hit", you are not just suspending the resolution of the trigger. You are re-calculating the event that resulted in the trigger. You are going backwards and figuring out if the hit still hits by re-doing the to hit equations.

So, why don't you have "drop to 0" jump in and suspend the resolution of the trigger? Just like to hit is calculate by attack rolls and defenses, hit points are calculated by hit points and damage. You are not suspending the resolution of drop to zero, you are forcing the PC to drop to zero.

You are changing how you do it. You are never re-calculating the damage that resulted in the trigger of dropping to zero. You are re-calculating the attack role that resulted in the to hit.

You are changing the paradigm of how you resolve the trigger.


And, the rules has an explicit example in the immediate interrupt section that disagrees with your interpretation.

"If an interrupt invalidates a triggering action, that action is lost. For example, an enemy makes a melee attack against you, but you use a power that lets you shift away as an immediate interrupt. If your enemy can no longer reach you, the enemy’s attack action is lost."

This example doesn't matter whether the power is:

Trigger: You are hit by an attack
Effect: You shift one square.

or:

Trigger: You drop to 0 hit points or fewer
Effect: You shift one square.

Your interpretation means that some triggers cannot be interrupted, only reacted to.

You are forcing the PC to stay at zero hit points before applying the effect of the Bear's Endurance interrupt. That's not interrupting the trigger. That's reacting after the trigger. You are allowing the PC to not be hit before applying the AC effect of the Shield interrupt. That's interrupting the trigger.


You are doing two completely opposite things based on where in the sequence the trigger occurs. If you are not going to apply the rules the same regardless of trigger, how can your interpretation be correct?

 

[Blood Jester]

This example doesn't matter whether the power is:

Trigger: You are hit by an attack
Effect: You shift one square.

or:

Trigger: You drop to 0 hit points or fewer
Effect: You shift one square.

You just gave a perfect example to DISPROVE your own point.

"Trigger: You are hit by an attack
Effect: You shift one square."

-> Negates the attack.


"Trigger: You drop to 0 hit points or fewer
Effect: You shift one square."

->Does *not* negate the attack, as the trigger is after the damage is applied.
What it does do is give you a free movement even if you are unconcious.

Would anyone want the second power? No, but it is still a different effect. Which is exactly why no one would want that power.

You are treating all the different parts of what happens in an attack (or action) as homogenous, and then telling everyone that they can't give you an example of two different effects because they are applied to the same trigger.

They are not in any way, shape, or form the same trigger. Just as falling off a balcony, and hitting the floor below are not the same thing.

Trigger: you fall of a high object
Interrupt: Feather fall activates

=/

Trigger: you take falling damage
Interrupt: Feather fall activates


The first is useful, the second is useless. Both come from triggers that are part of the same event, but occur at different points in sequence.


This is also why descriptions for interrupt powers do things such as specify "You are hit by an attack" as opposed to "You are attacked" a subtle, but critical difference.

 

[KarinsDad]

You just gave a perfect example to DISPROVE your own point.

"Trigger: You are hit by an attack
Effect: You shift one square."

-> Negates the attack.


"Trigger: You drop to 0 hit points or fewer
Effect: You shift one square."

->Does *not* negate the attack, as the trigger is after the damage is applied.
What it does do is give you a free movement even if you are unconcious.

The flaw in your logic is that you are allowing the damage to be applied. The best way I can explain it is:

How does one determine the trigger?

How does one determine if a PC is hit?
How does one determine if a PC drops below 0 hit points?

One determines to hit by adding a dice roll to a bonus and determining if it hits a defense. The immediate interrupt interrupts that calculation, modifies the defense and may or may not prevent the hit. The trigger is not resolved until after the immediate interrupt is resolved.

One determines drop to 0 by subtracting damage from hit points and determining if the result is 0 or lower. The immediate interrupt interrupts that calculation, modifies the current hit points and may or may not prevent the PC from dropping below 0. The trigger is not resolved until after the immediate interrupt is resolved.


One cannot modify the calculation to determine the trigger in the one case and not do so in the other case and conclude that one is following the same rules in both cases.

One cannot apply the effect of the interrupt before re-calculating the trigger in one case, and not re-calculate the trigger by applying the effect of the interrupt after the trigger in the other case, and conclude that one is following the same rules in both cases.


You cannot apply the effects before the trigger resolves in one case and after the trigger resolves in the other. The rules don't work that way.


The only difference between these two cases (Shield and Bear's Endurance) is that negating to hit means that the target is not hit at all and negating dropping to 0 means that the PC still takes the damage, he just gets healed first before doing so (before resolving the trigger).

In the teleport case, the target is no longer next to the attack either before to hit is calculated (with the one power) or before damage is calculated (with the other power). Again, the action is negated because the immediate interrupt rules indicate that the action can no longer occur (i.e. out of range). It doesn't matter which portion of the action is interrupted. It's all one action and the PC is no longer in range. The entire action is interrupted, not just one tiny portion of it when the effect negates a portion of an action.

Take a Wilden Destroyer attacking with his Greatclub a PC Wizard who has Shield. The Wizard uses Shield and negates the to hit.

The Wizard is still marked by the effect of the club attack. Unlike the teleport case where the attack action is totally negated and the wizard would not be marked, in this case, the effect which is not linked to the "to hit" is not prevented because the attack was not prevented. The attack still occurs, the PC is missed, but the PC is still marked. In one case, the action is not negated, just the to hit. In the other case, the entire action is negated.

 

[DarkLord Of DForce]

I know I'm probably wrong on this, but when I'm doing an immediate interrupt, it always feels to me like its a pause, rather than turning back time.

I think of it as:

trigger - lying in wait

trigger conditions met

immediate interrupt goes off

Whatever triggered the immediate interrupt is paused

during pause, assessment made

trigger resolves or finishes

whatever triggered the interrupt now attempts to finish resolving, as best it can, according to the conditions it now faces. If it can't meet its own requirements, it fails.


I do wish WOTC would do an update on this and write an absolute ironclad, foolproof rule (or is there such a thing?)

 

[DracoSuave]

"Trigger: You drop to 0 hit points or fewer
Effect: You shift one square."

->Does *not* negate the attack, as the trigger is after the damage is applied.

Wrong. If the damage is applied, your hit points have been reduced. If your hit points have not been reduced, damage has not been applied. The reduction of hit points is inherent in the resolution of any damage effect. If you interrupt the reduction of hit points, you must interrupt the damage being dealt. There's no situation where you're damaged but hit points are not yet subtracted, any more than there's a situation where you're attacking, but not yet receiving your bonuses to hit.

And the 'It doesn't mention an attack so it doesn't interrupt it' is assanine

It's like if you have a power that has a trigger 'You are hit by an attack' and targets a triggering enemy... and you try to argue there are no legal targets because it's triggered by a hit, and thus, not by a creature, but an enemy. A triggering action only needs to cause the trigger to occur, just as a triggering enemy only needs to use a triggering action.