But if you gain THP from an interrupt, then the THP would be eaten before your real hit points, and *might* prevent you from going down.
Stupid Question: PHB3 Minotaur Ferocity...
- Thread starter OhGodtheRats
- Start date
But if you gain THP from an interrupt, then the THP would be eaten before your real hit points, and *might* prevent you from going down.
I don't think this is the case.
You are reduced to zero hps triggering the attack; you make the attack and gain temp hps; you resolve being at 0 hps with temporary hps. At this point you fall unconscious and make a death save.
What you're suggesting means backing up even further to gain the temp hps BEFORE damage is dealt. You can't stop from taking the damage. That's already done. You can't invalidate the attack. That's already done. You are at zero. Normally you would fall unconscious, but this attack is an immediate interrupt so it happens before that does. Resolve the attack and fall unconscious (unless you can heal yourself with the attack).
Although I normally agree with Draco Suave on all things rules-related, I feel like this one is pretty cut and dry. If the trigger was "You are attacked" or "You take damage from an attack" I would see the argument. But that's not the trigger.
You can still invalidate the being at 0 hps trigger, but you do this by healing yourself not by killing the attacker.
See, I think this is a tougher question, and not really answered by the CSR.
On one hand, if you think of it as taking damage that would reduce you to 0 HP, then I'd say temp hit points would most certainly potentially prevent you from going to 0 or below.
On the other hand, if you read it as you take damage, then you stop at zero and don't resolve the rest of this damage yet, interrupt the space below 1 and before you zero, then continue taking damage, then temp hit points would keep you at 0 with temp hit points which would be chewed through first for the damage left to take you below zero. If you have positive hit points, then you'd be zero with temp hit points.
I believe that the first explanation is more reasonable (and more playable). The text says, "When you drop to 0 hit points or fewer," which sounds like before you actually apply the chunk of damage that could take you below zero. If your interrupt attack with effect provides healing, then that interrupt's healing is resolved before the triggering condition, which is dropping your hit points. In this case, it doesn't matter if it's temp or real hit points, the result is the same.
If we were to take the second interpretation, then it sounds like the healing isn't applied until after you go to zero hit points, which means it can't be invalidated and you will go unconscious, even if you instantly become conscious again (and prone) after the actions are resolved.
On one hand, if you think of it as taking damage that would reduce you to 0 HP, then I'd say temp hit points would most certainly potentially prevent you from going to 0 or below.
On the other hand, if you read it as you take damage, then you stop at zero and don't resolve the rest of this damage yet, interrupt the space below 1 and before you zero, then continue taking damage, then temp hit points would keep you at 0 with temp hit points which would be chewed through first for the damage left to take you below zero. If you have positive hit points, then you'd be zero with temp hit points.
I believe that the first explanation is more reasonable (and more playable). The text says, "When you drop to 0 hit points or fewer," which sounds like before you actually apply the chunk of damage that could take you below zero. If your interrupt attack with effect provides healing, then that interrupt's healing is resolved before the triggering condition, which is dropping your hit points. In this case, it doesn't matter if it's temp or real hit points, the result is the same.
If we were to take the second interpretation, then it sounds like the healing isn't applied until after you go to zero hit points, which means it can't be invalidated and you will go unconscious, even if you instantly become conscious again (and prone) after the actions are resolved.
Last edited:
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
I think clarifying Immediate INterrupts might help more - An Immediate Interrupt _can_ interrupt an action and possibly "undo" it - but that only applies when it is triggered specifically by an action and not something else, even if that something else is a result of your action.
You are right in saying this interpretation wouldn't be very playable, but it's not quite how I believe the rule works (or at least is intended to work).
I don't think you stop taking the damage when you hit 0 hps because of this power. You take all the damage. If, after taking that damage, you are at 0 or fewer hps, you may use this power. Normally, you would fall immediately unconscious, but this interrupts that allowing the attack to resolve before unconsciousness sets in.
If this attack grants you temp hps, great, but you still fall unconscious because you still are at 0 or fewer hps. You can't retroactively apply this to the damage you take because you already took it.
If, however, this attack heals you, then you are at 0 but heal before falling unconscious (because that has been interrupted). After the attack resolves, you are no longer at 0 (you are at whatever the heal gave you) and you never fell prone.
I'm not saying it's an especially clear or intuitive power interaction nor am I saying that other arguments are unreasonable, but I personally think this is the way the power is intended to work and that this interpretation makes its interactions with other powers fairly clean and simple.
But the trigger is "When you drop to 0 hit points or fewer", and interrupts are resolved before the condition that allowed them, so therefor the interrupt action occurs and is resolved before you "drop to 0 hit points or fewer", right?
Am I missing something here?
Dr_Ruminahui
First Post
I would play it NOman's way - its most in line with how other interupts work, such as immediate interupt powers such as the PH2 lvl 6 Sorceror Utility "Sudden Scales" that "Gives you +x defence when hit by an enemy attack" - it (and other such powers) obviously give you a bonus to defences for that attack, with the intent that doing such will turn the hit to a miss and therefore invalidate the trigger.
I see this as no different - its an interupt, so if your attack gives you HPs/temp HPs, those go into the pool that are removable by the attack, which likely (but may not) result in the Minotaur staying conscious.
In my opinion, Chzbro's interpretation is making it a non-interupt.
I would also like to throw in my 2 cents that I'm not happy with it being an interupt action - means that you can't use it if you happen to have used a different interupt that turn (such as Sudden Scales, or Combat Challenge), nor if you are taken down in your own turn (be it from an opportunity attack, ongoing damage, an aura, damaging terrain or a zone). Not sure what action they could have made it to deal with these concerns, though... and I must admit that the "no opportunity/immediate actions on your own turn" leads to some rules interactions that I don't like (such as delaying one's movement to the fighter's turn to avoid his Combat Challenge attack).
I see this as no different - its an interupt, so if your attack gives you HPs/temp HPs, those go into the pool that are removable by the attack, which likely (but may not) result in the Minotaur staying conscious.
In my opinion, Chzbro's interpretation is making it a non-interupt.
I would also like to throw in my 2 cents that I'm not happy with it being an interupt action - means that you can't use it if you happen to have used a different interupt that turn (such as Sudden Scales, or Combat Challenge), nor if you are taken down in your own turn (be it from an opportunity attack, ongoing damage, an aura, damaging terrain or a zone). Not sure what action they could have made it to deal with these concerns, though... and I must admit that the "no opportunity/immediate actions on your own turn" leads to some rules interactions that I don't like (such as delaying one's movement to the fighter's turn to avoid his Combat Challenge attack).
Last edited:
Wait a minute. since Combat Challenge is very rarely a monster ability, are you suggesting that you've experienced a DM having a monster use this tactic against a player!?
Though I believe it's technically legal, it seems a really cheesy thing to do to your players. As a DM, I'd never use such a tactic, unless they were up against an adversary that is specifically a strong tactician.
I know 4E throws in a lot of gamist conventions (and I approve of much of it), however that doesn't mean that encounters should now be played as a tactical war game.
My personal belief is that a DM should not be completely trying to use every tactical trick and advantage that they (as a player) might have, but rather fight the battle in a way that is fitting for the adversary. As a DM, let the reckless orcs or mindless undead eat some opportunity attacks. Allow a kobold to make a bad tactical decision based out of cowardice. Allow the tactics (or lack thereof) be driven by the flavor of the opponent!
DM's min-maxing the tactics, regardless of whether it is fitting for the opponent or not, is only going to encourage players to take longer on their turns too, contemplating the tactics, and slowing things down.
I know this is a bit of a tangent... that sentence really just struck me though.
I agree that healing is what the minotaur should be looking to milk from the attack. I think that if you could get some DR out of an attack, then the minotaur could conceivably reduce the damage so that he doesn't actually drop to 0.
kaomera
Explorer
OK, this has been confusing the heck out of me... But I think I understand it now. (Hopefully if I do it will be helpful to others, and if I don't someone will point out where I've gone wrong.)
Now, my problem, personally, was that between reading this thread, a thread on the WotC boards, and a chat with a friend I ended up fixating on whether there should be a "gap" (timing-wise) between the damage being inflicted and "dropping to 0 hit points or fewer". Thing is: it doesn't matter.
OK, so in the normal course of play actions proceed one after the other and you complete each action before starting the next one.
With an Immediate Reaction you still proceed from one action to the next, but you get to jump in on another creature / character's turn, taking your IR action immediately after they have completed the action that contained the trigger (or at least completing all of the immediate, non-ongoing effects).
With an Immediate Interrupt you get to jump in on another creature / character's action. But you interrupt the action, not the trigger. The trigger tells you where to interrupt the action: immediately after whatever, uh, triggered it... And specifically before any other effects of that trigger. In essence, the II creates another effect of the trigger...
So in this case, there's no way for Ferocity to cause you to make the MBA before or even concurrent from dropping to 0 hp or below. You drop to 0 (or below), and then you (normally) would fall unconscious, gain the Dying condition, and the II takes effect; but the II says to make the MBA first (because it's an Interrupt). You could gain THP or Resist or whatever, but you're still already at 0 hp (or below) real hps.
Note that the wording could be a bit odd, still. I think that by RAI you should gain the MBA only when going from positive hps to non-positive hps... But "drop to" isn't specifically defined. If it triggers from dropping from negative hps to a lower negative value a Minotaur with the racial Paragon path could get interesting...
Now, my problem, personally, was that between reading this thread, a thread on the WotC boards, and a chat with a friend I ended up fixating on whether there should be a "gap" (timing-wise) between the damage being inflicted and "dropping to 0 hit points or fewer". Thing is: it doesn't matter.
OK, so in the normal course of play actions proceed one after the other and you complete each action before starting the next one.
With an Immediate Reaction you still proceed from one action to the next, but you get to jump in on another creature / character's turn, taking your IR action immediately after they have completed the action that contained the trigger (or at least completing all of the immediate, non-ongoing effects).
With an Immediate Interrupt you get to jump in on another creature / character's action. But you interrupt the action, not the trigger. The trigger tells you where to interrupt the action: immediately after whatever, uh, triggered it... And specifically before any other effects of that trigger. In essence, the II creates another effect of the trigger...
So in this case, there's no way for Ferocity to cause you to make the MBA before or even concurrent from dropping to 0 hp or below. You drop to 0 (or below), and then you (normally) would fall unconscious, gain the Dying condition, and the II takes effect; but the II says to make the MBA first (because it's an Interrupt). You could gain THP or Resist or whatever, but you're still already at 0 hp (or below) real hps.
Note that the wording could be a bit odd, still. I think that by RAI you should gain the MBA only when going from positive hps to non-positive hps... But "drop to" isn't specifically defined. If it triggers from dropping from negative hps to a lower negative value a Minotaur with the racial Paragon path could get interesting...
