Warden L6 Utility "Bears Endurance"

[nikadeemus327]

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.

Rules Compendium p195 "A trigger is an action, an event or an effect that allows the use of the triggered action."

So yes, some can be invalidated while others are not. If the above said "A trigger is an action that allows the use of the triggered action" I would agree but its more then just that. It resolves down to the individual statements.

So...

The attack statement is not causing the trigger. The hit statement is.

This means the hit statement is the trigger and the effect of bear's endurance gets executed right before it.

 

[nikadeemus327]

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?

Maybe they didn't. Doesn't really matter. The hit statement is still the trigger.

 

[Gryph]

Maybe they didn't. Doesn't really matter. The hit statement is still the trigger.

The words on the power be damned, eh? Well I guess I have to admire your self-confidence if nothing else.

 

[nikadeemus327]

The words on the power be damned, eh?

Yes.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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.

Can be, not must be. As nikadeemus pointed out:

Rules Compendium p195 "A trigger is an action, an event or an effect that allows the use of the triggered action."

I contend that Bear's Endurance is intended to trigger off the event of dropping below zero hit points. Not the action that lead to the effect that caused the event.

This means the hit statement is the trigger and the effect of bear's endurance gets executed right before it.

Except you are ignoring that an event can trigger an immediate interrupt, like dropping to zero or fewer hit points.

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

Their is baggage associated with falling below zero hit points that forbid the designers from making Bear's Endurance an immediate reaction. It had to be an immediate interrupt to work at all.

"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.

I still contend that their is an infinitely small space between taking the damage and falling unconscious where the interrupt of Bear's Endurance sneaks in.

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

And I feel you and Draco are doing the same. You are treating the rules about interrupts as if they must be tied to an action.

The designers weren't thinking of all of the intricacies of this 9 page discussion when they wrote those rules.

I can agree with you wholeheartedly on this point.

 

[nikadeemus327]

I contend that Bear's Endurance is intended to trigger off the event of dropping below zero hit points. Not the action that lead to the effect that caused the event.

Except you are ignoring that an event can trigger an immediate interrupt, like dropping to zero or fewer hit points.

Disagree. The event that is triggering bear's endurance is getting hit. Dropping below zero is a condition, not an event. In fact, dropping below zero is the condition that causes the hit statement to become the trigger.

Also, being hit isn't an action in and of itself. It's only part of an action.

 

[KarinsDad]

I contend that Bear's Endurance is intended to trigger off the event of dropping below zero hit points. Not the action that lead to the effect that caused the event.

I contend that Bear's Endurance is intended to trigger off the event of dropping below zero hit points. That doesn't mean that it won't interrupt the action that caused it, the condition that caused it, or the event that caused it. It can interrupt anything, not just falling unconscious. Just like other immediate interrupts.

Your POV is based totally on what you think the intent of the designers is. Mine is based on keeping the rules consistent for all immediate interrupts. I don't do something special like performing the event after performing half of the trigger with my interpretation, just for this type of immediate interrupt.

Their is baggage associated with falling below zero hit points that forbid the designers from making Bear's Endurance an immediate reaction. It had to be an immediate interrupt to work at all.

No doubt. But, that doesn't change the fact that dropping to zero hit points is just a special case of dropping to any amount of hit points by taking damage. Just like dropping to bloodied is a special case of dropping to any amount of hit points by taking damage.

I still contend that their is an infinitely small space between taking the damage and falling unconscious where the interrupt of Bear's Endurance sneaks in.

If so, then wouldn't they have made the trigger "falling unconscious"? That way, it is not tied to damage in any way. The way they worded it, it is forced to be tied to the special damage case of dropping below 0.

And I feel you and Draco are doing the same. You are treating the rules about interrupts as if they must be tied to an action.

Not at all. Dropping below zero hit points can be done due to an aura on the attacker's turn. The PC still gains the hit points before taking the aura damage.

 

[Gryph]

Disagree. The event that is triggering bear's endurance is getting hit. Dropping below zero is a condition, not an event. In fact, dropping below zero is the condition that causes the hit statement to become the trigger.

Also, being hit isn't an action in and of itself. It's only part of an action.

Well dropping is a verb, so simply english language parsing would tend to consider it something that actively happens, which is a fair generic definition for an event. Even if you don't like that condition and effect are clearly synonomous in the 4e rules, so dropping to zero can still be a trigger in and of itself by the rule you quoted.

 

[Gryph]

I contend that Bear's Endurance is intended to trigger off the event of dropping below zero hit points. That doesn't mean that it won't interrupt the action that caused it, the condition that caused it, or the event that caused it. It can interrupt anything, not just falling unconscious. Just like other immediate interrupts.

Your POV is based totally on what you think the intent of the designers is. Mine is based on keeping the rules consistent for all immediate interrupts. I don't do something special like performing the event after performing half of the trigger with my interpretation, just for this type of immediate interrupt.



No doubt. But, that doesn't change the fact that dropping to zero hit points is just a special case of dropping to any amount of hit points by taking damage. Just like dropping to bloodied is a special case of dropping to any amount of hit points by taking damage.

In practice, this largely true, but 4e is an exception based design game so special cases are expected to change the normal rules. This is not argument for or against your overall interpretation, just pointing out that arguing that a special case has to be treated like the general is contraindicted by the rules for specific beats general.

If so, then wouldn't they have made the trigger "falling unconscious"? That way, it is not tied to damage in any way. The way they worded it, it is forced to be tied to the special damage case of dropping below 0.

Because Unconscious is also caused by several powers (Sleep forex.) that do not reduce hit points below zero and those states of unconscious are not affected by healing.

Not at all. Dropping below zero hit points can be done due to an aura on the attacker's turn. The PC still gains the hit points before taking the aura damage.

In theory, though the aura's I'm familiar with deal damage on the player's turn so an Immediate isn't valid.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

If so, then wouldn't they have made the trigger "falling unconscious"? That way, it is not tied to damage in any way. The way they worded it, it is forced to be tied to the special damage case of dropping below 0.

Because there are ways to fall unconscious without dropping below zero hit points and Bear's Endurance is not intended to work in those instances. Also there are ways to stay conscious when dropped below zero hit points.

They could have tied it to the Dying condition, but then it wouldn't trigger when an enemy knocks you out instead of making the killing blow.

I agree that they could have worded it more clearly. But the intent, IMO, is that the trigger is the event of dropping. Yes, they should have created a game term similar to Bloodied that they could have tied this to and all would have been much clearer. I still stand by triggering on the "dropped" condition. Obviously this is a descriptive term, not a specific game term, so YMMV.

I'm curious, both KarinsDad and DracoSauve, how would you have ruled the use of this powe in your games before picking apart the power in this multi-page topic?