PHB3 minotaur death blow

[S'mon]

When reduced to 0hp, the minotaur PC can strike a blow as an immediate Interrupt. Interrupts can prevent completion of the triggering action, that is how they differ from Reactions. That would mean that if the minotaur kills the person who took him to 0, he never got hit and takes no damage, creating a recursive loop? Or do you treat it as effectively a Reaction, so he still takes the damage?

 

[RangerWickett]

It can't be a reaction, because he'd be unconscious after the damage is resolved. I think the intent was that you're interrupting the application of damage, not the hit itself. So you get hit, you're about to take damage, you rewind a smidge and hit back, then the damage that was waiting hits you and you fall unconscious.

Compare to if it said, "Immediate Interrupt. Trigger: An attack reduces you to 0 hp. Effect: Prevent the damage that attack would deal."

It gets amusing when a cluster of minotaurs fight.

 

[webrunner]

It can't be a reaction, because he'd be unconscious after the damage is resolved. I think the intent was that you're interrupting the application of damage, not the hit itself. So you get hit, you're about to take damage, you rewind a smidge and hit back, then the damage that was waiting hits you and you fall unconscious.

Compare to if it said, "Immediate Interrupt. Trigger: An attack reduces you to 0 hp. Effect: Prevent the damage that attack would deal."

It gets amusing when a cluster of minotaurs fight.

Step one: Line up a a bunch of nearly-dead minotaurs with low defenses that hate each other.

Step two: Kill one on one end from range.

Step three: DOMINOS!

 

[Riastlin]

I don't have my books in front of me, so I don't know the exact wording. If the wording is "Trigger: An attack would reduce you to 0 HP or fewer" then I think the death blow would prevent the attack.

If the wording is "Trigger: An attack reduces you to 0 HP or fewer" then as Ranger Wicket said, you are just interrupting the application of damage (or as the name implies, getting in a death blow). As the OP stated if the language is more like the second then you would get a recursive loop, the succesful death blow prevents the damage, which then prevents the death blow from triggering, etc.

 

[Aulirophile]

Doesn't interrupt the dying. Due to the wording of the attack sequence, once a hit happens you take the damage no matter what. You have to interrupt the hit (as Fighters with say, Shield Push do) to negate it. You're Interrupting the damage, which is still going to apply, you just get a free attack off. The benefit of being an II is that it wouldn't do anything if it was an IR, because you can't take actions while unconscious.

Still one of the few cases where it is quite possible to see the movie classic "they kill each other at the same time."

 

[S'mon]

It can't be a reaction, because he'd be unconscious after the damage is resolved.

Since the exception (minotaur remains conscious long enough to strike back) always beats the general rule (minotaur falls unconscious at 0hp) in 4e, that seems a weak argument to me. I can't see any need not to call it a Reaction.

 

[S'mon]

So nobody thinks they actually intended to make the damage preventable? That's good, because that's how I would rule as DM, even though its description as an Interrupt seems to argue against it.

Riastlin:
"I don't have my books in front of me, so I don't know the exact wording. If the wording is "Trigger: An attack would reduce you to 0 HP or fewer" then I think the death blow would prevent the attack.

If the wording is "Trigger: An attack reduces you to 0 HP or fewer" then as Ranger Wicket said, you are just interrupting the application of damage"

OK, that seems a possible RAW argument in support of the ruling I would make anyway, thanks.

 

[Nichwee]

Since the exception (minotaur remains conscious long enough to strike back) always beats the general rule (minotaur falls unconscious at 0hp) in 4e, that seems a weak argument to me. I can't see any need not to call it a Reaction.

But this would mean the Trigger would have to be a lot more convoluted to prevent odd effects.
Current Trigger:When you fall to 0 hitpoints or lower ....

If you allowed this to work as a IR that can be done unconcious you have the issue that you can use it when someone hits you while you are dieing (reduces you from -5 to -35 HP say). Thus the trigger would need to get extra convoluted ala:
Trigger: When you are reduced to 0 or lower hitpoints while previously having had positive hitpoints......

Or they can just have it interrupt the damage (not the effect that caused the damage) and not allow actions while unconcious. It can still save you from unconciousness if the hit could gain you HP/THP sufficient that you end the damage on >0 HP now.

 

[S'mon]

But this would mean the Trigger would have to be a lot more convoluted to prevent odd effects.
Current Trigger:When you fall to 0 hitpoints or lower ....

If you allowed this to work as a IR that can be done unconcious you have the issue that you can use it when someone hits you while you are dieing (reduces you from -5 to -35 HP say). Thus the trigger would need to get extra convoluted ala:
Trigger: When you are reduced to 0 or lower hitpoints while previously having had positive hitpoints......

Or they can just have it interrupt the damage (not the effect that caused the damage) and not allow actions while unconcious. It can still save you from unconciousness if the hit could gain you HP/THP sufficient that you end the damage on >0 HP now.

Hmm, ok. This is getting a bit complex for me, but I take your word for it!

 

[mneme]

I agree that killing the person inflicting the damage doesn't prima facae mean you don't get to take damage.

OTOH, this would work great with basic attacks that grant you healing -- drop to 0 hp, hit something, heal; don't fall unconcious! Not sure how to accomplish that one, though (aside from having your friendly neighborhood cleric pinyata an adjacent enemy in advance, of course).