Warden L6 Utility "Bears Endurance"

[Istar]

The problem is that the trigger is not a set point in time for this power.

Its not "You are hit by an attack".

Its you go to zero or below, which happens part way through taking damage.

Say you are on 10 HP and you take 20 damage from a stab in the dark.

The interupt takes place half way through being stabbed ??

 

[KarinsDad]

The problem is that the trigger is not a set point in time for this power.

Set point in time? What does this mean? There are no set points in time when resolving an attack action. Where do you find rules for this?

There are a series of steps that determine what happens when an attack occurs. Sometimes we skip over some of these or do them in a slightly different order, but it's not just a few steps that are "set points in time". They might be set points in time with respect to how a given set of players calculate what happens, but there are no rules for when each step occurs and they don't get locked in stone once a step is over. For example, steps 3 and 4 below can often be switched from gaming group to gaming group.

1) Choosing Targets. If you want to use a power against an enemy, the enemy must be within the range of your power, and you have to be able to target the enemy.
2) Determine effects that occur before attack.
3) Determine Defense. Defense +- modifiers.
4) Determine Attack Roll. 1d20 +- modifiers.
5) Determine if the attack criticals.
6) Determine if the attack hits.
7) Determine damage. Damage +- modifiers.
8) Determine new hit points.
9) Determine if the PC changes state like going below zero or being pushed to a different square.
10) Make a hazard roll if target moves into hazardous terrain or over a cliff.
11) Determine effects that occur after attack resolution.
12) If more than one attack, re-do those steps that are necessary in the order that they are necessary. For example, two attacks against the same PC would resolve before the first attack pushes the PC away.

The action is all of these steps and can be partially or totally negated by an immediate interrupt interfering with any of them. Effectively, all of the steps have to be re-done in order to determine what happened. It's not going back in time, it's changing the metagame calculations based on what powers are in play, including the immediate interrupt.

Let's take an example:

Yensurros, Ghostly Malison attacks a PC with Double Attack and hits and pushes a PC. A different PC uses Evade Attack to teleport the first PC away if he gets hit.

Step #1 above is negated because Yensurros is no longer in range to do the attack at all.

The second PC cannot let the first attack hit and do damage, and then teleport the PC away when the second attack hits. The attack resolution steps are not set points in time. There are no discrete points in time within the action unless the action states otherwise. Just like the first attack cannot push the PC away before the second attack occurs. Both attacks are resolved, even though the power does something in addition to just doing damage.

Let's take a different example:

A Silt Runner Inciter shift and attacks a PC with Incite Fury and hits. A different PC uses Evade Attack to teleport the first PC away if he gets hit.

The shift portion of the Incite Fury power (step #2) still occurs. But, step #1 above still fails. It's a partial interruption of the power.

The Shield spell would interrupt step #6 and recalculate step #3.

Bear's Endurance would interrupt step #9 and recalculate step #8.

People can view this as "going back in time", but it really isn't. It's starting from scratch with all of the powers that are currently in play for this action and determining what happens.


It's all one action. Any immediate interrupt can interfere with any of the steps and force a reevaluation of any of the other steps, resulting in any or all of the other steps to fail or not even be used at all.


If an immediate interrupt power changes the result on an action, nothing stops a different PC or NPC from throwing a second (or third or fourth) immediate interrupt power to change the result again. For example, if a monster had an immediate interrupt that allowed an ally to teleport next to an enemy if that enemy teleports (if such a power exists), then Evade Attack would move the PC away and the monster would teleport his ally next to the teleporting PC and the original hit would resolve normally.

Each time, the players have to stop and reevaluate the entire resolution of the action based on which powers are currently in play.

 

[DarkLord Of DForce]

That one part just doesn't seem right to me.

It looks like to me, that the first attack that triggered Evade Attack would resolve first, therefore his attack would be done, and not continue after a 2nd interrupt whose trigger decidedly occurs after the first sequence of events.

Just rolls around in my head that way. Of course, this thread is making my head hurt, so a lot of things could be rolling around there now.

 

[Nullzone]

Magic: the Gathering actually has the most clear interpretation of this, IME. Some spells (cards) are "Instant" -- they can be cast on anybody's turn, and at any point in the turn. These effects always spend resources when cast, but then are given a chance to resolve via "the stack". Every spell (card) cast is placed on the top of the stack, and as long as players keep playing Instant spells, the stack continues to grow; once no further spells are cast, the stack resolves, starting with the TOPMOST card. This means that the Instants will resolve first and in reverse order of their original play.

So, for example:

- I attack my opponent with a monster that can deal 6 damage. My opponent has a protective spell cast that says I have to deal at least 4 damage in order for the damage to count, otherwise it is absorbed.
- Opponent doesn't like this, so spends mana to cast a spell that says "Target creature is -3 damage", targeting my strong monster.
- I need to deal at least 4 damage, so I spend mana to cast a "counter target spell", targeting my opponent's spell to prevent its effects.
- Opponent spends more mana to cast "Destroy target creature" instead.
- I have no more mana, so the stack resolves. The destroy creature triggers as the topmost card, destroying my strong monster. Then my counter goes off, countering the card immediately beneath it, canceling the spell's effects (but still spending the resources). Finally, my monster would normally make his attack, but he is no longer in play, so his original action is now void.


The only cardinal difference is that while Instants can be cast at any time, Immediate Interrupts require specific conditions be met; but in either case, the Interrupt must fire immediately preceding the condition which enabled its use. In the case of Bear's Endurance, I would rule it thus:

I target you with an attack.
I hit you.
You're going to take 50 damage.
Resolving this damage would take you to 0 hp, so Interrupt: Bear's Endurance.
Heal 30 hp.
Take 50 damage.
Now at 30 hp.

Note however that I would not rewind an entire action; the trigger was being taken to 0 hp, not being hit. If the point of the stack doesn't put the Interrupt above a certain event, then it still proceeds as originally declared, even if the post-trigger conditions would otherwise invalidate it in its original declaration. There's a reason that every "escape" interrupt is triggered on hit, and not on damage.

 

[Gryph]

Set point in time? What does this mean? There are no set points in time when resolving an attack action. Where do you find rules for this?

There are a series of steps that determine what happens when an attack occurs. Sometimes we skip over some of these or do them in a slightly different order, but it's not just a few steps that are "set points in time". They might be set points in time with respect to how a given set of players calculate what happens, but there are no rules for when each step occurs and they don't get locked in stone once a step is over. For example, steps 3 and 4 below can often be switched from gaming group to gaming group.

1) Choosing Targets. If you want to use a power against an enemy, the enemy must be within the range of your power, and you have to be able to target the enemy.
2) Determine effects that occur before attack.
3) Determine Defense. Defense +- modifiers.
4) Determine Attack Roll. 1d20 +- modifiers.
5) Determine if the attack criticals.
6) Determine if the attack hits.
7) Determine damage. Damage +- modifiers.
8) Determine new hit points.
9) Determine if the PC changes state like going below zero or being pushed to a different square.
10) Make a hazard roll if target moves into hazardous terrain or over a cliff.
11) Determine effects that occur after attack resolution.
12) If more than one attack, re-do those steps that are necessary in the order that they are necessary. For example, two attacks against the same PC would resolve before the first attack pushes the PC away.

.

The rules for making an attack specifically end at your step 7 this step also includes applying explicit conditions (Target is Stunned, etc.) and other riders (pushed, defense penalties, etc.). The rest of the steps are consequences of the attacks damage but not part of the attack. Your step 9 is nonsensical and step 10 would happen as part of step 7 when the forced movement happened. Honestly, I have no idea what stpe 11 would encompass that wouldn't be part of step 7.

Note: Your step 7 corresponds to Step 5 of the rules compendium "Making an Attack" that I quoted earlier in the thread.

That is why the trigger "Drop to 0 or fewer hit points" is fundamentally different the the trigger "take damage".

Since you asked for rules quotes from me to prove my point I would say you've raised the bar. Please provide rules quotes for your order of operations, don't make it up.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I target you with an attack.
I hit you.
You're going to take 50 damage.
Resolving this damage would take you to 0 hp, so Interrupt: Bear's Endurance.
Heal 30 hp.
Take 50 damage.
Now at 30 hp.

This supports Draco's point that you heal before taking the damage, possibly making the power useless (e.g., you're at full and are taken down in one hit). Others in this thread would swap the "Heal" and "Take" lines in your list, thus making the power Bear's Endurance more useful.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I'm not going to jump into the RAW discussion as many of you have great points and I can't decide strictly by RAW how this should work.

RAI OTOH I believe this power was made as an Immediate Interrupt because you would not be able to take an Immediate action once you fall unconscious. I believe the power is intended to interrupt the condition of falling unconscious. Thus I would rule at my table that the character ends up at his healing surge value in hit points. The wording of Immediate Interrupt seems to support this somewhat.

Interrupt: An immediate interrupt lets you jump in when a certain trigger condition arises, acting before the trigger resolves. If an interrupt invalidates a triggering action, that action is lost. For example, an enemy makes a melee attack against you, but you use a power that lets you shift away as an immediate interrupt. If your enemy can no longer reach you, the enemy’s attack action is lost.

Emphasis mine. The condition you are interrupting is "falling to zero hit points" also defined as "dying" and/or "unconscious." They seemed to want to include characters who are knocked unconscious through hit point loss, while excluding those who go unconscious due to a sleep-typr effect.

At any rate I can definately see why the wording they chose would cause all this discussion.

 

[KarinsDad]

The rules for making an attack specifically end at your step 7 this step also includes applying explicit conditions (Target is Stunned, etc.) and other riders (pushed, defense penalties, etc.).

I've been through the PHB a lot of times (just now for example) and I don't see where the Damage section states anything about explicit conditions. In fact, the Attack Resolution section involves attack results, damage, conditions, ongoing damage, resistance and vulnerability, and forcing movement subsections. The conditions subsection is not part of the damage subsection.

So how can they be the same step?

By definition, if an interrupt interferes with any portion of the Attack Resolution rules, it has the potential to prevent an attack completely.

Step 7 is damage.

When you are sitting at the table, the players typically determine damage and then go on to determine other things. For example, determining the new number of hit points the target has after determining how much damage is taken.

It's amazing that your group can do it at exactly the same time without an additional step or calculation involved.

The rest of the steps are consequences of the attacks damage but not part of the attack.

Sliding the foe is not part of the attack? Killing the foe is not part of the attack? Giving a bonus to hit on future attacks is not part of the attack?

How about secondary attacks that occur as part of the "Hit:" line of a power?

If the hit line says "If you drop a foe, take a secondary attack.".

How do you determine that you can do this if you do not do the other calculations first?

Where do you draw the line between "attack" and "not attack"?

Your step 9 is nonsensical

You don't determine if a PC goes below zero, or is bloodied, or has moved position or a variety of other things that can happen?

Odd. I suspect that most other groups do this.

and step 10 would happen as part of step 7 when the forced movement happened. Honestly, I have no idea what stpe 11 would encompass that wouldn't be part of step 7.

Note: Your step 7 corresponds to Step 5 of the rules compendium "Making an Attack" that I quoted earlier in the thread.

That is why the trigger "Drop to 0 or fewer hit points" is fundamentally different the the trigger "take damage".

Since you asked for rules quotes from me to prove my point I would say you've raised the bar. Please provide rules quotes for your order of operations, don't make it up.

Interesting. You seem to want to lump all of the different things done when adjudicating an action into "attack roll and its ilk" and "damage and its ilk" where the attack roll can be disrupted, but nothing else in the power can be.

I'm not going to bother messing with your request. Your point of view is recalculating the "PC is hit" portion of Shield by interrupting that hit, but is not recalculating the "PC drops to zero" portion of Bear's Endurance. Since you don't have an explicit rules quote to support you doing it one way for one interrupt and doing it a totally different way for another, the burden of proof is on your side of the fence.

All I know is that the rules state that immediate interrupts can invalidate an action and the only way to do that once a calculation is performed is to re-perform the calculation if the effect of the interrupt can modify a component of the calculation.

Otherwise, Shield would not work the way nearly everyone thinks it does.

 

[KarinsDad]

That one part just doesn't seem right to me.

It looks like to me, that the first attack that triggered Evade Attack would resolve first, therefore his attack would be done, and not continue after a 2nd interrupt whose trigger decidedly occurs after the first sequence of events.

What if Evade Attack wasn't declared until after the second attack roll is rolled? It's trigger is that the ally is hit, so minimally, one or more attack rolls have to be rolled in order to determine if the ally is hit.

 

[Gryph]

I've been through the PHB a lot of times (just now for example) and I don't see where the Damage section states anything about explicit conditions. In fact, the Attack Resolution section involves attack results, damage, conditions, ongoing damage, resistance and vulnerability, and forcing movement subsections. The conditions subsection is not part of the damage subsection.

So how can they be the same step?

Top of Page 276 under the header Attack Results

You resolve an attack by comparing the total of your attack roll to the appropriate defense score. If your roll is higher than or equal to the defense score, you hit. Otherwise you miss.
When you hit, you usually deal damage and sometimes produce some other effect. When you're using a power, the power description tells you what happens when you hit. Some descriptions also say what happens when you miss or when you score a critical hit.

The emphasized section is the citation for the conditions being part of the same resolution step as applying damage.

Interestingly, the Death and Dying section that gives the rules that say dropping below zero hit points means your dying are not even part of the attack or combat turn rules. They start on page 295 of the PHB for your reference. This is why I stand by my belief that the attack and damage resolution steps are discrete from the drop to zero hit points and unconscious/dying condition resolution.

I get that you disagree with this, but I've quoted rules and page numbers twice now to support my statements and you have quoted the accuracy of your amazing memory.

By definition, if an interrupt interferes with any portion of the Attack Resolution rules, it has the potential to prevent an attack completely.

Step 7 is damage.

When you are sitting at the table, the players typically determine damage and then go on to determine other things. For example, determining the new number of hit points the target has after determining how much damage is taken.

It's amazing that your group can do it at exactly the same time without an additional step or calculation involved.



Sliding the foe is not part of the attack? Killing the foe is not part of the attack? Giving a bonus to hit on future attacks is not part of the attack?

How about secondary attacks that occur as part of the "Hit:" line of a power?

If the hit line says "If you drop a foe, take a secondary attack.".

How do you determine that you can do this if you do not do the other calculations first?

Where do you draw the line between "attack" and "not attack"?



You don't determine if a PC goes below zero, or is bloodied, or has moved position or a variety of other things that can happen?

Odd. I suspect that most other groups do this.

Sliding a foe is part of the attack if the power says it is. Killing a foe is the result of the attack but not part of the attack. I believe the rules fully support and expect that to be the case or frankly the power in question would be idiotic with too many corner cases where it would not meaningfully function with the trigger given using your interpretation of the order of operations.

Interrupts can, by rule, clearly invalidate an action. By rule they also happen in a scintilla of time where "a certain triggering condition arises" (page 268 phb) but "before the trigger resolves" (ibid). It is important to note that nowhere in the rules section on Interrupt does it say that the Immediate invalidates the action by going back in time to a point before the triggering condition arose.

Shield works by sliding into that moment when, from the rule I quoted above, you have compared the attack roll to the appropriate defense but before you have moved to the second paragraph which is the resolution of the hit. In fact you "jump in" at that point.

Interesting. You seem to want to lump all of the different things done when adjudicating an action into "attack roll and its ilk" and "damage and its ilk" where the attack roll can be disrupted, but nothing else in the power can be.

Not at all, there are many triggers for interrupts that say some variation of "when you take damage" or "when knocked prone" that could very well invalidate the attack because damage and conditions specified by the power are clearly part of the attack and its resolution.

I just don't accept your unsupported by the rules assertion that the effects of taking damage that drops you to zero or fewer hit points is part of the attack resolution. Since I do not believe the rules consider that event to be part of the attack resolution then a trigger that fires from "dropping to zero or less hitpoints" cannot, by rule invalidate the attack action.

Therefore it has to happen at the point where the damage has been taken but the final resolution of the "zero or fewer hit points state", i.e. the unconsious and dying conditions being applied to the character have not. Until the unconscious condition is applied a character can still take an immediate action so no objections to the availability of immediate actions is pertinent.

A side note but maybe of interest. I believe that an attack that stunned in addition to delivering damage that would normally trigger this utility would prevent the utility from being used, as the Stunned condition does prevent a character from taking actions.

not going to bother messing with your request. Your point of view is recalculating the "PC is hit" portion of Shield by interrupting that hit, but is not recalculating the "PC drops to zero" portion of Bear's Endurance. Since you don't have an explicit rules quote to support you doing it one way for one interrupt and doing it a totally different way for another, the burden of proof is on your side of the fence.

All I know is that the rules state that immediate interrupts can invalidate an action and the only way to do that once a calculation is performed is to re-perform the calculation if the effect of the interrupt can modify a component of the calculation.

Otherwise, Shield would not work the way nearly everyone thinks it does.

Well, since I quoted rules earlier and your counter arguments did directly address my choice of rules quoted nor did you offer counter quotes to support your interpretations; I believe the burden is still on you.

In fact I apply my interpretation exactly the same way for Shield and Bear's Endurance. What we don't agree on is whether the effect of damage that drops you to zero hit points is part of the attack resolution. I have offered up rules references that I believe support my position. You have not.