Super-Specific Rules Question: Fire Resist, Flamewall Strike, and Phoenix Step

[Kinneus]

I'm building a character, a hybrid Swordmage/Wizard Tiefling with what I think is a pretty clever little defensive combo; using Flamewall Strike to trigger Phoenix Step.

My only concern is that the trigger for Phoenix Step is "You take fire damage." Since he's a Tiefling and has Fire Resistance, would Phoenix Step trigger even if Flamewall's wall doesn't do 1 hitpoint of damage or more to my character?

Do you actually have to take damage for Phoenix Step to trigger? Or is just being exposed to fire damage enough?

 

[Obryn]

Damage means you actually take damage. If you resist all of it, you have not taken damage.

-O

 

[Manbearcat]

Obryn has it here. 4e is quite explicit (or at least it has aimed to be). The operative word here is "take" rather than "resist". Take implies that you subtract damage from your HP pool. If you do not subtract damage from your HP pool due to resisting it (or otherwise mitigating it), then the prerequisite of "you take fire damage" is not met.

 

[Ferghis]

I don't have a particular view on this issue, but I'm wondering if Obryn and Manbearmeow know of any support for their take other than their understanding of the language.

I could easily agree with them, but I could just as easily consider damage that was resisted still damage that was taken. The logic would be (a) was there damage - yes; (b) who took it - you did. The fact that you resisted it may or may not be relevant. By Manbearpurr's logic enough temp HP could negate the requirement that you take damage, since no damage would be subtracted from the real HP pool.

Unless someone comes up with more support for one take or another, I would recommend that the DM go with whatever is more fun for that particular game. If the character is a particularly good build and doesn't need the extra "help," perhaps go with the more limiting interpretation. If the trick in question is fun for the table as a whole and doesn't obstacle the DM threatening the party with reasonable enemies, then allow it.

 

[Manbearcat]

From the MM1, MM2 and PHB1:

Resist

A creature that has resistance takes less damage from a specific damage type. For example, a creature that has resist 10 fire takes 10 less damage whenever it takes fire damage.

and from the Rules Compendium:

Resistance

Resistance means a creature takes less damage from a specific damage type. Resistance appears in a stat block or power as “Resist x,” where x is the amount that the damage is reduced, followed by the type of damage that is being resisted. Damage cannot be reduced below 0. For example, a creature that has resist 5 fire takes 5 less fire damage whenever it takes that type of damage. Some creatures are inherently resistant to certain damage types, as noted in their stat blocks, and some powers and other effects grant temporary resistance.

In particular, this bit:

"For example, a creature that has resist 5 fire takes 5 less fire damage whenever it takes that type of damage."

Therefore, when reduced to 0 fire damage, you take 0 damage. 0, of course, is none. So you do not take damage. If "you take 0/no damage" needs to be clarified from "you take damage" then at every second of the life of an adventurer (and commoner, and structure, all things in existence, etc) would need to be canvassed in the rules text with "you take no damage" and our texts would become burdensome, to say the least As such, any effect that has a trigger prerequisite of "taking damage" is not triggered. This interfaces with damage that immediate actions (which can negate by way of (i) resistance, (ii) damage reduction, (iii) not being at the location of the attack anymore or (iv) imposition of a negative that turns "a hit" and thus "taking damage" into "a miss" or "not taking damage") negates as well. If an immediate action renders damage temporarily taken inert then the target does not take damage (and in the case of an interrupt, a meta-fiction ret-con occurs which then is mapped to the fiction). In the fiction this would manifest as any number of things but mechanically it just means that "you take 0/no damage."

Regarding Temporary HPs, my understanding is that the trigger "you take damage" is still met. The RaW is explicitly "take damage", not "reduce hit points". If it was "reduce hit points" then RaW, Temporary HPs would negate the trigger as they are "not real hit points" (as shown below) but an additional meta-game buffer (upon the pre-existing meta-game buffer of HPs). "Taking damage" and "reducing HPs" are mechanically distinguished (you can take damage and (i) reduce temporary HPs, take damage and lose a Healing Surge - as in a Skill Challenge or any other mechanic that causes a PC to "take damage" by losing a Healing Surge/meta-vitality/plot protection). We can meander into the age-old of "what is a hit point in D&D?" but that won't get us anywhere when trying to interpret the rules text regarding explicit triggers. When discussing Temporary HPs below they advise that you still "take damage" in that it doesn't "reduce the damage to 0" but rather you "subtract temporary HPs before reducing HPs."

Temporary HP per the Rules Compendium:

Temporary Hit Points

A variety of sources can grant temporary hit points—small reservoirs of stamina that insulate a creature from losing actual hit points.

Not Real Hit Points: Temporary hit points aren’t healing, but rather a layer of “insulation” that attacks have to get through before they start dealing real damage to a target. Don’t add temporary hit points to a creature’s current hit points (if an adventurer has 0 hit points or fewer, he or she still has 0 or fewer after receiving temporary hit points). Keep track of them as a separate pool of hit points.

Don’t Count toward Maximum: Temporary hit points don’t count when comparing a creature’s current hit points to its maximum hit points, when determining whether the creature is bloodied, or for other effects that depend on its current hit points.

Lose Temporary Hit Points First: When a creature takes damage, first subtract its temporary hit points from the damage. Any remaining damage reduces its current hit points.

That is my sense of the RaW. If you are the GM or your GM wants it to work differently, then have it and produce the most fun possible. But "take damage" (implying take 1 or more damage) is pretty clear and the rules texts would be overburdened indeed if they had to explicate "you take 0/no damage" in all the situations it would apply (breathing, blinking, existing, etc ).

 

[Manbearcat]

Further insight on this can be found in the Immediate Actions section of the PHB1 and Rules Compendium. A Resist n (or any Damage Reduction) is effectively a "passive interrupt". Not in terms of usage (eg it doesn't eat up your immediate action for the round), but rather in terms of intended adjudication. See below:

Immediate Action

<snip>

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.

And, as such, is expressed in the fiction as not existing as the mechanical construct of the triggering action's existence is hereby ret-conned out of existence by the supervening mechanical resolution of the interrupt. Damage 10 becomes Damage 0 (the damage 10 never happened in the fiction). Slide 2 becomes Slide 0 (the slide 2 never happened within the fiction). Thereby, their existence (and any corresponding triggers that would interface with their existence) is lost/terminated.

 

[Balesir]

The logic would be (a) was there damage - yes;

If the effect was an area effect there might have been, but if it was specific to you then, no, there wasn't - you didn't get damaged.

(b) who took it - you did.

No, you didn't - you are as undamaged after the attack as before it; how that could possibly be interpreted as "taking damage" I'm not sure, but the English is quite clear.

Kudos to [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] for putting so much effort into explaining the obvious...

 

[Ferghis]

It may have been obvious to you, Balesir, but it obviously was not the only obvious take on the issue for me. Strange that you missed that...

In particular, this bit:

"For example, a creature that has resist 5 fire takes 5 less fire damage whenever it takes that type of damage."
...
Regarding Temporary HPs, my understanding is that the trigger "you take damage" is still met.

This is all very solid support. Thanks for looking it up and citing it in depth.