Warden L6 Utility "Bears Endurance"

[KarinsDad]

Therefore it has to happen at the point where the damage has been taken but the final resolution of the "zero or fewer hit points state", i.e. the unconsious and dying conditions being applied to the character have not.

And I can say the exact same thing practically word for word for Shield.

"Therefore it has to happen at the point where the PC has been hit but the final resolution of the "you are hit state", i.e. the damage and other conditions being applied to the character have not."

Practically word for word.

I add the +4 to AC and Reflex of Shield before damage and conditions are applied. But, the PC is still hit. The PC still has that +4 to AC and Reflex until the end of his next turn, but it does nothing for this attack action because "you are hit" has already been resolved. That's what happens when you treat an immediate interrupt as an immediate reaction (like you are for Bear's Endurance).

I'll use your own words "It is important to note that nowhere in the rules section on Interrupt does it say that the Immediate invalidates the action by going back in time to a point before the triggering condition arose."

Hence, one cannot go back in time and re-calculate a PC being hit when that PC uses Shield. The hit has already occurred. One cannot go back in time.

Your own words dude, but just applied to Shield instead of Bear's Endurance. Let me repeat that. Your own words dude.

You cannot have it both ways. It cannot be "not going back in time" for the Shield case and "going back in time" for the Bear's Endurance case. There are no explicit rules for handling the cases differently. None of your rules quotes have done this.

It cannot be "you are hit" is a step and is not set in stone for resolving the entire action, and "you go to zero hit points" is not a step and is set in stone for resolving the entire action.

I cannot comprehend that you do not comprehend that you are treating the two cases differently.

Every single little step in the entire process of adjudicating an attack action is a step that can be interrupted. Otherwise, the interrupt rules are inconsistent. One cannot pick and choose which steps can be interrupted and which ones cannot. Calculating damage is part of the resolution of an action. Sliding the target is part of the resolution of an action. Bloodying a target is part of the resolution of an action. You cannot resolve an action merely up to the point in time that a PC is declared HIT. The rest of the steps are part of the resolution of the entire action and an immediate interrupt can invalidate those points in time (i.e. triggers) just like it can invalidate earlier points in time for the resolution of the entire action.

Well, since I quoted rules earlier and your counter arguments did directly address my choice of rules quoted nor did you offer counter quotes to support your interpretations; I believe the burden is still on you.

In fact I apply my interpretation exactly the same way for Shield and Bear's Endurance.

I don't have to quote rules quotes. I just have to show where you are being inconsistent by treating the two cases differently (like I just did by using your own words, not once, but twice).

The bottom line is that you treat "action resolution" as a point in time part way before the entire action is resolved where an action can be interrupted, but beyond that part way point in time, you treat immediate interrupts as immediate reactions (not completely, it's actually a third type of interrupt that you've created where the trigger cannot be changed, but not quite an immediate reaction).

Your "where in the PHB certain rules are located" justifications not withstanding, your logic is flawed.


The flaw in your logic is that you are treating the trigger "you are hit" as something not set in stone and reversible while you are treating the trigger "you go below 0 hit points" as something set in stone and non-reversible.

You have not actually quoted a rule that allows for that. You just explain where part way in the process of adjudicating the entire action you draw your line and no longer allow the interrupt to be immediate.

 

[Istar]

Okay so say I am on 10 HP.

I am attacked and DM says, 15 damage buddy from a slap in the face by Draco.

I say, immediate interupt to that Mr. DM.

And say my surge value is 20 HP, I go up to 30 HP.

I then take the 15 damage and I am at 15 HP.

I then say, better luck next time Draco and now I am going to kick your arce.

 

[KarinsDad]

The more I think about it, the more I view the opposing POV as coming up with a new type of interrupt not defined in the rules.

II 1: Shield (or Heroic Effort): It may or may not change the trigger.
II 2: Bear's Endurance: It cannot change the trigger. It's not that the power might not change the trigger, it's that it is impossible for it to do so.
IR: Mind Spike: It cannot change the trigger.

Interestingly enough, Shield is worded such that it doesn't indicate that it can change the calculation that leads to the trigger whereas Heroic Effort is worded such that it does indicate that it can change the calculation that leads to the trigger.


The phrase "before the trigger resolves" means before the trigger happens, not before something in response to the trigger happens.

Combat Challenge is resolved before the marked target shifts away.

Shield is resolved before the PC is hit.

Bear's Endurance is resolved before the PC goes to zero or lower hit points.


I think the confusion comes in here because some triggers are easy to comprehend as interruptable and others are less so. It's easy to comprehend a point in time before the target shifts away as a set point in time that can be interrupted. It's a little harder to comprehend a point in time before the PC actually drops below zero hit points as a set point in time that can be interrupted.

Our minds are somewhat pre-conditioned to think "Well, he has already dropped to zero hit points, by changing that, we are going back in time". We are not going back in time. We are interrupting the trigger before it occurs. Just like we are doing so for Combat Challenge.

When the resolution of a trigger is interrupted, it means by definition that the trigger hasn't yet happened. The target has not shifted away. Yet. The PC has not been hit. Yet. The PC has not dropped below zero hit points. Yet.

It's not just that all of the extra baggage that goes along with dropping to zero hit points hasn't happened, it's that dropping to zero hit points (the trigger itself, just like for every other example) hasn't yet happened. The PC still has the 27 hit points he had before damage was subtracted because he hasn't yet dropped below zero hit points.

One has to be consistent and adjudicate all of these the exact same way.

The opposing POV is not doing that. They are drawing a new line in the sand where the PC is below zero hit points, but the ramifications of that (like dying) have not yet occurred.

That's a new rule. That's changing the fact that the trigger hasn't yet happened because the immediate interrupt is occurring first. The resolution of shifting is that the target actually shifts. The resolution of dropping below zero hit points is that the target is actually below zero hit points. These both (may or may not) occur after resolving the effect of the immediate interrupt, but one has to determine that by applying the effect of the interrupt before applying the rules that resulted in the trigger.

 

[Nullzone]

Must spread xp around before giving some to KarinsDad again.

 

[DracoSuave]

Gryph: By your logic, you cannot interrupt an attack power with the trigger 'You are hit' because the rules for rolling to attack and resolving hits are on a different page than the description of attack powers.

Or for a more specific example, by your interpretation, Aegis of Shielding cannot deduct damage because not only is how to resolve an attack roll on a different page than the power dealing the damage, but how to roll damage is on a different page than rolling the attack.

In fact, the power dealing the damage is probably even in different book so they must be discrete steps that cannot influence another! How can you affect a kobold's attack against you with Second Chance if the power you're affecting isn't even in the same book as Second Chance?

Just because 'Death and Dying' is not in the same section as the resolution of the attack roll, or the same book as the power delivering the attack or a different book than the power that did it does not make those rules any less intertwined.

Nor, by the way, are the dying and unconscious conditions triggered effects. They are binary, like bloodied. If you are below your bloodied value, you are bloodied. You do not trigger a 'become bloodied' effect which resolves.

Similiar with dying, unconscious, and prone. When you are below zero hit points, you are dying. When you are dying, you are unconscious. When you are unconscious, you are prone. Dropping below zero doesn't cause a chain of triggers that you respond to one by one in terms of these conditions. Just like you can't be below bloodied value and not be bloodied.*

*as always, explicit exceptions can trump any of this, but do we really need this disclaimer

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Shield
Trigger: You are hit by an attack

Bear's Endurance
Trigger: You drop to zero hit points or fewer

Embers of Life
Trigger: You take damage that would reduce you to 0 hit points or fewer

These three are worded differently so one would expect that the outcome would be different. One interrupts the hit, another interrupts the damage, while the third interrupts dropping to zero hit points or fewer.

So I stand with my RAI interpretation. Bear's Endurance does not interrupt the damage, it interrupts you dropping to the damage and thus leaves you at hit points equal to your healing surge value.

 

[Gryph]

And I can say the exact same thing practically word for word for Shield.

"Therefore it has to happen at the point where the PC has been hit but the final resolution of the "you are hit state", i.e. the damage and other conditions being applied to the character have not."

Practically word for word.

I add the +4 to AC and Reflex of Shield before damage and conditions are applied. But, the PC is still hit. The PC still has that +4 to AC and Reflex until the end of his next turn, but it does nothing for this attack action because "you are hit" has already been resolved. That's what happens when you treat an immediate interrupt as an immediate reaction (like you are for Bear's Endurance).

I'll use your own words "It is important to note that nowhere in the rules section on Interrupt does it say that the Immediate invalidates the action by going back in time to a point before the triggering condition arose."

Hence, one cannot go back in time and re-calculate a PC being hit when that PC uses Shield. The hit has already occurred. One cannot go back in time.

Your own words dude, but just applied to Shield instead of Bear's Endurance. Let me repeat that. Your own words dude.

You cannot have it both ways. It cannot be "not going back in time" for the Shield case and "going back in time" for the Bear's Endurance case. There are no explicit rules for handling the cases differently. None of your rules quotes have done this.

It cannot be "you are hit" is a step and is not set in stone for resolving the entire action, and "you go to zero hit points" is not a step and is set in stone for resolving the entire action.

I cannot comprehend that you do not comprehend that you are treating the two cases differently.

Every single little step in the entire process of adjudicating an attack action is a step that can be interrupted. Otherwise, the interrupt rules are inconsistent. One cannot pick and choose which steps can be interrupted and which ones cannot. Calculating damage is part of the resolution of an action. Sliding the target is part of the resolution of an action. Bloodying a target is part of the resolution of an action. You cannot resolve an action merely up to the point in time that a PC is declared HIT. The rest of the steps are part of the resolution of the entire action and an immediate interrupt can invalidate those points in time (i.e. triggers) just like it can invalidate earlier points in time for the resolution of the entire action.



I don't have to quote rules quotes. I just have to show where you are being inconsistent by treating the two cases differently (like I just did by using your own words, not once, but twice).

The bottom line is that you treat "action resolution" as a point in time part way before the entire action is resolved where an action can be interrupted, but beyond that part way point in time, you treat immediate interrupts as immediate reactions (not completely, it's actually a third type of interrupt that you've created where the trigger cannot be changed, but not quite an immediate reaction).

Your "where in the PHB certain rules are located" justifications not withstanding, your logic is flawed.


The flaw in your logic is that you are treating the trigger "you are hit" as something not set in stone and reversible while you are treating the trigger "you go below 0 hit points" as something set in stone and non-reversible.

You have not actually quoted a rule that allows for that. You just explain where part way in the process of adjudicating the entire action you draw your line and no longer allow the interrupt to be immediate.

Since my ruling is that you apply a healing surge starting from zero hit points leaving the player with his surge value in hit points, how is the trigger condition not negated? He was below zero triggering the interrupt and after the immediate he is at say 16 hit points so the conditions that would normally apply to dropping below zero have been invalidated. It isn't necessary to go back to the damage application for this interrupt to get its job done. The trigger has, in your words, been reversed.

The inconsistency of application is in your head, I treat them exactly the same way. Without the utility the warden would be unconscious and dying with the interrupt he is not. It is not a reaction because the player NEVER goes unconscious and is never dying, the normal resolutions for dropping below zero hit points.

Attack resolution, including damage, and Death and Dying resolution, started by dropping below zero hit points, are two different parts of the rules and trying to comine them into one inseperable whole is not stated or implied by the rules.

 

[Gryph]

Gryph: By your logic, you cannot interrupt an attack power with the trigger 'You are hit' because the rules for rolling to attack and resolving hits are on a different page than the description of attack powers.

.

In fact, the power dealing the damage is probably even in different book so they must be discrete steps that cannot influence another! How can you affect a kobold's attack against you with Second Chance if the power you're affecting isn't even in the same book as Second Chance?

Strawman argument, and you know it. The rule I quoted specifically references that the effects of being hit are described by the power used. The rules for the power are part of the attack resolution by specific rules inclusion. You lose polints from the judges for this line of argument.

Just because 'Death and Dying' is not in the same section as the resolution of the attack roll, or the same book as the power delivering the attack or a different book than the power that did it does not make those rules any less intertwined.

The point is they are specifically not part of the rules for attack resolution, which conditions, forced movement and other effects explicitly caused by attack powers are.

Nor, by the way, are the dying and unconscious conditions triggered effects. They are binary, like bloodied. If you are below your bloodied value, you are bloodied. You do not trigger a 'become bloodied' effect which resolves.

So bloodied, death and dying are conditions that just spring out of the ground with nothing causing them. What do you think causes them. And I believe there are interrupts that trigger on "when you are bloodied" so the designers don't agree with you either.

Similiar with dying, unconscious, and prone. When you are below zero hit points, you are dying. When you are dying, you are unconscious. When you are unconscious, you are prone. Dropping below zero doesn't cause a chain of triggers that you respond to one by one in terms of these conditions. Just like you can't be below bloodied value and not be bloodied.*

*as always, explicit exceptions can trump any of this, but do we really need this disclaimer

Barring, say an interrupt that jumps in when the triggering condition arises and completes before the triggering event finishes. You mean that kind of explicit exception?

 

[Gryph]

The more I think about it, the more I view the opposing POV as coming up with a new type of interrupt not defined in the rules.

II 1: Shield (or Heroic Effort): It may or may not change the trigger.
II 2: Bear's Endurance: It cannot change the trigger. It's not that the power might not change the trigger, it's that it is impossible for it to do so.
IR: Mind Spike: It cannot change the trigger.

Interestingly enough, Shield is worded such that it doesn't indicate that it can change the calculation that leads to the trigger whereas Heroic Effort is worded such that it does indicate that it can change the calculation that leads to the trigger.

The effect of Bear's Endurance clearly changed the trigger. After it fires, by my ruling, the character is no longer below zero hit points. Not very impossible after all.

The phrase "before the trigger resolves" means before the trigger happens, not before something in response to the trigger happens.

Not in English it doesn't

Combat Challenge is resolved before the marked target shifts away.

But not before he starts the shift by declaring the move action.

Shield is resolved before the PC is hit.

But not before there has been an attack declaration and a roll against defenses.

Bear's Endurance is resolved before the PC goes to zero or lower hit points.

Not before he has taken the damage that sends him below zero.

I think the confusion comes in here because some triggers are easy to comprehend as interruptable and others are less so. It's easy to comprehend a point in time before the target shifts away as a set point in time that can be interrupted. It's a little harder to comprehend a point in time before the PC actually drops below zero hit points as a set point in time that can be interrupted.

Our minds are somewhat pre-conditioned to think "Well, he has already dropped to zero hit points, by changing that, we are going back in time". We are not going back in time. We are interrupting the trigger before it occurs. Just like we are doing so for Combat Challenge.

When the resolution of a trigger is interrupted, it means by definition that the trigger hasn't yet happened. The target has not shifted away. Yet. The PC has not been hit. Yet. The PC has not dropped below zero hit points. Yet.

It's not just that all of the extra baggage that goes along with dropping to zero hit points hasn't happened, it's that dropping to zero hit points (the trigger itself, just like for every other example) hasn't yet happened. The PC still has the 27 hit points he had before damage was subtracted because he hasn't yet dropped below zero hit points.

One has to be consistent and adjudicate all of these the exact same way.

The opposing POV is not doing that. They are drawing a new line in the sand where the PC is below zero hit points, but the ramifications of that (like dying) have not yet occurred.

That's a new rule. That's changing the fact that the trigger hasn't yet happened because the immediate interrupt is occurring first. The resolution of shifting is that the target actually shifts. The resolution of dropping below zero hit points is that the target is actually below zero hit points. These both (may or may not) occur after resolving the effect of the immediate interrupt, but one has to determine that by applying the effect of the interrupt before applying the rules that resulted in the trigger.

Mechanically, there is at least the requirement to declare the action to start the resolution of the action.

This declaration is all that is needed for Combat Challenge to work correctly. The shift started with the declaration to take a move action to shift and the Fighter's attack happens before he actually changes squares and the shift resolves.

Your confusion is that you want to wrap a whole chain of causality into one atomic whole starting with an action declaration. The rules don't support that interpretation. Your own earlier post with a huge list of steps to an attack, tacitly admit that there isn't an unsplittable unit of action. The fact that there are interrupts that trigger on "being attacked", "being hit", "taking damage", "forced to move" lend weight to the action being broken into discrete sections.

In 10 pages of rules on taking an action in combat, pages that include how to make damage calculations, how to apply conditions and what those conditions do, why is there no reference to "if the damage drops your opponent to zero or fewer hit points" your opponent is dead or dying? Unless, those rules were seperated from the action resolution rules because the designers did not intend for them to be read as part of the action resolution rules.

I get that you do not agree with my interpretation that "dropping to zero hit points or fewer" is not part of the attack resolution. You can rule anyway you wish at your table.

I do not understand why you refuse to acknowledge that I have offered clear explanation of why I interpret that way, supported by direct and implied rules citations. Instead you thow up accusations of inconsistency of my interpretation, an inconsistency that only exists from your viewpoint of the "zero or fewer" resolution being part of the ation resolution.

I am not being inconsistent in the context of my rules interpretation. You can not claim to disprove me because my use of the interrupts is inconsistent by your interpretation of interrupts. You have to prove your interpretation on its own merits using your own rules quotes.

Specifically, show me where in the rules, either directly or by inference, the entire chain from action declaration to a PC lying unconscious and dying is one mechanical resolution rather than a series of discrete sections.

 

[frogged]

The crux of this argument seems to come down to a single question: Is taking damage a separate step or event from dropping below 0 hit points.

If they are separate, then the trigger occurs after you have already taken the damage and the only thing left to resolve is whether or not you are unconscious and dying.

If they are the same, then it is possible for this particular trigger to fire in the middle of resolving an attack. In such a case, the results of an interrupt could change the conditions before the attack is resolved (as might be the case with the example shifting power).