Warden L6 Utility "Bears Endurance"

[KarinsDad]

I posed this question to Wizards Customer Service:

Their reply:

Yeah. Customer Service is the worse place to get an answer.

You can have a dozen very knowledgeable people here discuss a rules issue and many of them will come to a decent conclusion. CS will look at the issue for 3 seconds and then come up with an answer that is generally way off the mark. Not always, but often. Anytime one gets an answer from CS, one can pretty much be guaranteed to be getting the knee jerk response answer with little real thought or rules behind it. One reason is that CS doesn't bother to even read the forums where discourse occurs.

 

[KarinsDad]

Your state of being is not part of the attack resolution.

That's debatable, but I don't think it is debatable that a character's state of being IS part of the action resolution. Before the action is finished, everything associated with it, even minor details, must be resolved.

It's the action that can be invalidated via the immediate interrupt rules, not just the attack.

 

[KarinsDad]

The trigger is "you drop below zero hit points", not "you take damage." The trigger interrupted the step in your own example where you fall below zero. Other II powers indicate "damage" or "hit" and would interrupt at different points in the sequence.

From an interrupt perspective, there really is no significant difference between "you drop below zero" and "you take damage".

"You drop below zero" is a specific case and subset of all of the possible "you take damage" events. Not only do you take damage, but your final total is below zero.

You take damage is the generic case. Any amount of damage triggers the II and it doesn't matter where the PC stops. In fact, dropping below zero does not stop the "you take damage" interrupt from occurring either because the PC is interrupting the dropping below zero in the "you take damage" case and hasn't yet dropped to zero. Just like when the PC has 50 and takes 10 and hasn't yet dropped to 40 because of the trigger.

This type of POV that a specific trigger is different than a general trigger where one cannot stop the attack and the other can isn't in the rules.

Your interpretation is trying to add rules that do not exist.

The existence of different wordings on different powers that would become equivalent under your interpretation tell me that the designers intended for the power to act differently.

Yes. The intent in one case is generic. Any damage.

The intent in the other case is more specific. Any damage that drops the PC below zero hits. Any argument that the designers had a different meaning because they didn't add the word "damage" to the second trigger is pure sophistry and semantics. The designers weren't thinking of all of the intricacies of this 9 page discussion when they wrote those rules.

There are no explicit rules that these two triggers are different at the point in time that the trigger occurs except for the fact that one of them triggers more often than the other.

Both of them are triggers that occur exactly when damage is subtracted from current hit points. It's at the exact same step in the action resolution.

 

[Gryph]

I'll be glad to, but it's literally been years since the questions come up last. Skyrim's coming out. So don't expect a hasty reply on this one.

Actually never mind, I can answer it right now.

The Charge action involves movement, followed by making an attack as a free action. The hit part of the free action is what is interrupted.

Uhm, Charge page 240 RC

A creature uses the charge action when it wants to dash forward and launch an attack with a single action. Such an attack is sometimes referred to as a charge attack.

Charge a Target

• Action: Standard Action. When a creature takes this action, it chooses a target. Figure out how far away the creature is from the target-even counting through squares of blocking terrain - and then follow these steps.
  1. Move: The creature moves up to its speed toward the target. Each square of movement must bring the creature closer to the target, and the creature must end the move at least 2 squares away from its starting position.
  • Attack: The creature either makes a melee basic attack against the target or uses bull rush against it. The creature gains a +1 bonus to the attack roll.
  • No Further Actions: The creature can't take any further actions during this turn, except free actions.

Then some language on some powers can be used in place of the MBA.

 

[nikadeemus327]

DracoSuave is the closest to being right. Let me demonstrate.

Let's assume the warden is at 9 HP with a healing surge value of 10.

Take the following basic melee attack power.

Attack: Melee 1 (one creature); +10 vs AC
Hit: 1d10 + 8 damage.

The attack statement is executed and the result is successful.
The hit statement is executed and the result is 15 damage causing the warden to go from 9 HP to -6 HP.
The trigger condition from Bear’s Endurance is met and the effect statement is executed before the hit statement.

So the final order is as follows...

The attack statement is executed and the result is successful.
The effect statement of Bear’s Endurance is executed causing the warden to go form 9 HP to 19 HP.
The hit statement is executed and the result is 15 damage causing the warden to go from 19 HP to 4 HP.

However, some examples were given about a +1 attack bonus to bloodied targets. Even if the warden was healed enough from Bear's Endurance to no longer be bloodied the attack statement would not be re-executed because it is not the triggering statement.

 

[Gryph]

DracoSuave is the closest to being right. Let me demonstrate.

Let's assume the warden is at 9 HP with a healing surge value of 10.

Take the following basic melee attack power.

Attack: Melee 1 (one creature); +10 vs AC
Hit: 1d10 + 8 damage.

The attack statement is executed and the result is successful.
The hit statement is executed and the result is 15 damage causing the warden to go from 9 HP to -6 HP.
The trigger condition from Bear’s Endurance is met and the effect statement is executed before the hit statement.

So the final order is as follows...

The attack statement is executed and the result is successful.
The effect statement of Bear’s Endurance is executed causing the warden to go form 9 HP to 19 HP.
The hit statement is executed and the result is 15 damage causing the warden to go from 19 HP to 4 HP.

However, some examples were given about a +1 attack bonus to bloodied targets. Even if the warden was healed enough from Bear's Endurance to no longer be bloodied the attack statement would not be re-executed because it is not the triggering statement.

Then how in the world would the heal be before the hit but you wouldn't check if a conditional bonus was changed for the hit. You know, since you just pushed the interrupt action to before the hit even though the hit isn't the trigger.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense when compared to the rest of your post.

 

[nikadeemus327]

Then how in the world would the heal be before the hit but you wouldn't check if a conditional bonus was changed for the hit. You know, since you just pushed the interrupt action to before the hit even though the hit isn't the trigger.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense when compared to the rest of your post.

The hit statement is the trigger. That's what you're missing. The effect from bear's endurance is executed before the trigger because its an interrupt. This means he is attacked, then healed, then hit.

The conditional bonus (+1 bloodied targets) is not applied to the hit statement, its applied to the attack statement. It doesn't matter if the healing causes the warden to no longer be bloodied. The attack statement has been executed and doesn't get re-executed because of the interrupt.

 

[KarinsDad]

However, some examples were given about a +1 attack bonus to bloodied targets. Even if the warden was healed enough from Bear's Endurance to no longer be bloodied the attack statement would not be re-executed because it is not the triggering statement.

Except that there are no such rules as "the attack statement is separate from the triggering statement". There are just a bunch of rules on how to resolve the entire action. Nothing in those rules indicate that an interrupt can invalidate some of those rules, but not others.

The rule is that an immediate interrupt can invalidate an action.

One rule is that Courageous Insight can not only prevent an attack from hitting the target when the target drops to zero (the triggering statement according to you), but it can also change the target of the hit (and hence in your terminology, the "targeting statement").

There really are no limits to what portion of an action can be negated as long as the conditions of the situation change drastically enough.

Teleporting away can change the range of the attack, even though range is calculated earlier than either the Attack line or the Hit line.

So, why can't healing change the attack bonus of the attack when the Attack line is calculated earlier than the Hit line?

Immediate interrupts interfere with the entire action, not just portions of it. There are no rules like you imply of an attack statement being calculated first and then can never be looked at again for an interrupt. There are many examples of IIs that do just that.

 

[Gryph]

Except that there are no such rules as "the attack statement is separate from the triggering statement". There are just a bunch of rules on how to resolve the entire action. Nothing in those rules indicate that an interrupt can invalidate some of those rules, but not others.

The rule is that an immediate interrupt can invalidate an action.

One rule is that Courageous Insight can not only prevent an attack from hitting the target when the target drops to zero (the triggering statement according to you), but it can also change the target of the hit (and hence in your terminology, the "targeting statement").

There really are no limits to what portion of an action can be negated as long as the conditions of the situation change drastically enough.

Teleporting away can change the range of the attack, even though range is calculated earlier than either the Attack line or the Hit line.

So, why can't healing change the attack bonus of the attack when the Attack line is calculated earlier than the Hit line?

Immediate interrupts interfere with the entire action, not just portions of it. There are no rules like you imply of an attack statement being calculated first and then can never be looked at again for an interrupt. There are many examples of IIs that do just that.

Yeah, I still don't agree with the order of the healing, but either it happens before the hit, with all that implies, or it doesn't happen before the hit. You can't go back to the hit for the heal and then not affect the hit determination when the situation has changed.

NOTE: This shouldn't be taken as agreement with KD, I'm still arguing with him.

 

[Gryph]

The hit statement is the trigger. That's what you're missing. The effect from bear's endurance is executed before the trigger because its an interrupt. This means he is attacked, then healed, then hit.

The conditional bonus (+1 bloodied targets) is not applied to the hit statement, its applied to the attack statement. It doesn't matter if the healing causes the warden to no longer be bloodied. The attack statement has been executed and doesn't get re-executed because of the interrupt.

Dude, even Draco and KD never tried to claim that the hit statement was the trigger to Bear's Endurance. Maybe you want to edit this?