Warden L6 Utility "Bears Endurance"

[DracoSuave]

So bloodied, death and dying are conditions that just spring out of the ground with nothing causing them. What do you think causes them. And I believe there are interrupts that trigger on "when you are bloodied" so the designers don't agree with you either.

I never said they were not caused by something. I said 'they are not triggered effects.' Triggered effects means something very specific within the context of the game rules. Conditions that are of a binary nature: If you are foo you are bar, are not triggered effects. When you are below zero, you are dying. That's not a trigger, that's a definition. When you are below your bloodied value, you are bloodied. That's not a trigger.

So, yes, being dropped below zero causes the dying condition, which causes the unconscious condition, which causes the prone condition. But what does not happen is:

Damage. (pause) Below zero. (pause) Apply dying (pause) Apply unconscious (pause) Apply prone (pause) Apply combat advantage (pause)... etc.

This is what happens with a series of triggered events. What actually happens is this:

Damage is applied, now you're below zero, dying, unconscious, prone, and granting combat advantage. Responding to ANY of that must occur before the damage has resolved, and that means before it's been subtracted, which means it must interrupt the damaging power.

And, even if it went like this:

Damage. (pause) Below zero. (pause) Apply dying (pause) Apply unconscious (pause) Apply prone (pause) Apply combat advantage (pause)... etc.

Then resolving it like this:

Damage. (pause) Below zero. (ZOMG BEAR'S ENDURANCE NAO) Apply dying (pause) Apply unconscious (pause) Apply prone (pause) Apply combat advantage (pause)... etc.

doesn't work, because the resolution of the triggers you claim to exist, dying, etc, occur AFTER the resolution of being below zero, meaning that Bear's Endurance is resolving after the resolution of being below zero, which means you are disobeying the word 'Interrupt' clearly spelled out before its range and after its keywords and usage word.

Barring, say an interrupt that jumps in when the triggering condition arises and completes before the triggering event finishes. You mean that kind of explicit exception?

But you're not resolving Bear's Endurance before the trigger's done resolving. Your interpretation includes being below zero hitpoints. Which means you've already dropped below zero. Having the trigger for an interrupt occur before the resolution of said trigger is wrong.

 

[Gryph]

I never said they were not caused by something. I said 'they are not triggered effects.' Triggered effects means something very specific within the context of the game rules. Conditions that are of a binary nature: If you are foo you are bar, are not triggered effects. When you are below zero, you are dying. That's not a trigger, that's a definition. When you are below your bloodied value, you are bloodied. That's not a trigger.

Now you are just making stuff up.

So, yes, being dropped below zero causes the dying condition, which causes the unconscious condition, which causes the prone condition. But what does not happen is:

Damage. (pause) Below zero. (pause) Apply dying (pause) Apply unconscious (pause) Apply prone (pause) Apply combat advantage (pause)... etc.

In essence, I believe that is pretty much what happens and you haven't given rules that support your whole "binary condition" vs "triggered event" nonsense.

This is what happens with a series of triggered events. What actually happens is this:

Damage is applied, now you're below zero, dying, unconscious, prone, and granting combat advantage. Responding to ANY of that must occur before the damage has resolved, and that means before it's been subtracted, which means it must interrupt the damaging power.

It goes, Attack Declared, Attack Hits, Attack Hit Section Resolves applying damage and effects, Attack Effect section might resolve if there is one. Attack is over. Target's HP state is checked, it is below zero, therefore target becomes unconscious and dying (and other conditions caused by those conditions). Triggering off going to zero hp, falling unconscious or dying (some monster powers interrupt on dying) cannot interrupt the damaging power.

And, even if it went like this:

Damage. (pause) Below zero. (pause) Apply dying (pause) Apply unconscious (pause) Apply prone (pause) Apply combat advantage (pause)... etc.

Then resolving it like this:

Damage. (pause) Below zero. (ZOMG BEAR'S ENDURANCE NAO) Apply dying (pause) Apply unconscious (pause) Apply prone (pause) Apply combat advantage (pause)... etc.

doesn't work, because the resolution of the triggers you claim to exist, dying, etc, occur AFTER the resolution of being below zero, meaning that Bear's Endurance is resolving after the resolution of being below zero, which means you are disobeying the word 'Interrupt' clearly spelled out before its range and after its keywords and usage word.

No, I clearly claim that going unconscious, dying, prone, etc are all part of resolving dropping to zero hit points or fewer. Interrupts, in plain english rule text, jump in when the triggering event arises and happen before the triggering event finishes resolving. So triggering event (dropping to zero or fewer hit points), interrupt (Bear's Endurance heals), oops invalidate the rest of the triggering event resolution because the character is no longer below zero hit points. More importantly, I haven't created a bunch of recursive loops where the interrupt could potentially negate the very damage that caused the interrupt making it impossible for the interrupt to have fired in the first place so the attack must have happened after all, ad infinitum.

But you're not resolving Bear's Endurance before the trigger's done resolving. Your interpretation includes being below zero hitpoints. Which means you've already dropped below zero. Having the trigger for an interrupt occur before the resolution of said trigger is wrong.

In fact it is dead right by rules. After the triggering event arises, before the triggering event resolves.

 

[KarinsDad]

But not before he starts the shift by declaring the move action.

But not before there has been an attack declaration and a roll against defenses.

Not before he has taken the damage that sends him below zero.

In the first case, you prevent the "shift" of the trigger and resolve the effect, then continue the shift if still applicable.
In the second case, you prevent the "you are hit" of the trigger and resolve the effect, then continue the hit if still applicable.
In the third case, you DO NOT prevent the "you drop below zero" of the trigger and resolve the effect, then continue the drop below zero if still applicable.

Using your method, the drop below zero is set in stone, the PC then heals and is always in positive hit points. There is no chance that the heal isn't powerful enough because you are forcing the hit points to be below zero before forcing them to be above zero. The hit trigger isn't set in stone. The shift trigger isn't set in stone. But, the drop below zero trigger is set in stone. It always happens with your interpretation.

If handled like the other two cases, the damage is calculated, but the PC doesn't take that damage yet because he interrupts the "drops to zero" trigger. Just like the hit is calculated, but the PC doesn't actually get hit yet because he interrupts the "you are hit" trigger.

"An immediate interrupt lets you jump in when a certain trigger condition arises, acting before the trigger resolves." The resolution of getting hit is getting hit. The resolution of shifting is shifting. The resolution of going below zero hit points is going below zero hit points.

This is not talking about other rules resolutions like a result of the trigger's resolution (like taking damage if hit, or dying if dropped below zero), it's talking about the resolution of the trigger itself.

It doesn't get any rules clearer than this. You are ignoring this rule in the third case and resolving the act of going below zero by forcing the PC to go below zero before applying the effect (not the resolution of dying or the resolution of going unconscious, but the resolution of going below zero hit points, these are different resolutions).

Are you seriously claiming that you are still handling these three triggers the same way when you apply the trigger before proceeding in the third case, but do not do so in the first two cases? Seriously? If so, now you are just arguing to argue. You haven't come up with a single valid reason why people should treat these triggers different, or a single valid explanation as to why your way is not treating them different.

This isn't worth arguing. It's obvious that you are throwing in a different way to handle the third case. And, it's obvious that the main immediate interrupt rule disagrees with your interpretation because you are not interrupting the trigger, you are interrupting other game rules (like unconsciousness and dying) which are not part of the trigger. These other rules are ramifications of the trigger occurring, just like taking damage is a potential ramification of getting hit. You are stopping downstream rules, but not the trigger itself in the third case.

 

[Gryph]

In the first case, you prevent the "shift" of the trigger and resolve the effect, then continue the shift if still applicable.
In the second case, you prevent the "you are hit" of the trigger and resolve the effect, then continue the hit if still applicable.
In the third case, you DO NOT prevent the "you drop below zero" of the trigger and resolve the effect, then continue the drop below zero if still applicable.

In none of those cases to I prevent anything. In all three cases, the event happens, triggers an interrupt so the we, temporarily stop the resolution of the event until after the interrupt is finished, and then finish the resolution of the triggering event, if it is still valid to do so. You keep adding words and changing the meaning of what I post.

Using your method, the drop below zero is set in stone, the PC then heals and is always in positive hit points. There is no chance that the heal isn't powerful enough because you are forcing the hit points to be below zero before forcing them to be above zero. The hit trigger isn't set in stone. The shift trigger isn't set in stone. But, the drop below zero trigger is set in stone. It always happens with your interpretation.

My method does not set the "drop below zero in stone" but it does not consider it part of the attack resolution, for the reasons and rules I posted upthread.

If handled like the other two cases, the damage is calculated, but the PC doesn't take that damage yet because he interrupts the "drops to zero" trigger. Just like the hit is calculated, but the PC doesn't actually get hit yet because he interrupts the "you are hit" trigger.

Only if you accept your premise that resolving "drop to zero or fewer hp" is in fact part of the attack resolution. You and DracoSuave clearly do, I and several other posters, just as clearly do not. The major difference is, several of has have cited rules passages in support of our interpretation and you content to refuse to do so.

"An immediate interrupt lets you jump in when a certain trigger condition arises, acting before the trigger resolves." The resolution of getting hit is getting hit. The resolution of shifting is shifting. The resolution of going below zero hit points is going below zero hit points.

I stand corrected, here is a rules citation.

This is not talking about other rules resolutions like a result of the trigger's resolution (like taking damage if hit, or dying if dropped below zero), it's talking about the resolution of the trigger itself.

In fact it is silent on what the trigger resolves means. So I turn to my handy english dictionary and decide they are probably not talking about a chemical process or legislative act, so they probably mean when the triggering event is settled or completed. Now if being below zero hit points is a binary state requiring no settling of the event it can hardly be interrupted at all can it? The rule says you jump in when it occurs, acting before it settles (resolves). In english there is a strong inference that a triggering event has to involve cause and effect and the interrupt then beings in between the cause and effect. It is able to invalidate the cause if its actions change something about the triggering event, like defense or being healed so no longer below zero hp.

It doesn't get any rules clearer than this. You are ignoring this rule in the third case and resolving the act of going below zero by forcing the PC to go below zero before applying the effect (not the resolution of dying or the resolution of going unconscious, but the resolution of going below zero hit points, these are different resolutions).

Well, I am making the PC take the damage, yes. The trigger isn't on going unconscious or on dying, it's on dropping hp. I still state and will continue to state, the resolution of dropping to zero hit points is applying the conditions unconscious and dying (and their related conditions, prone, et. al.) Funny, we both consider the rule crystal clear, just not, apparently, the same kind of crystal.

Are you seriously claiming that you are still handling these three triggers the same way when you apply the trigger before proceeding in the third case, but do not do so in the first two cases? Seriously? If so, now you are just arguing to argue. You haven't come up with a single valid reason why people should treat these triggers different, or a single valid explanation as to why your way is not treating them different.

I am serious. I have come up with many examples of my valid explanation, examples you don't like but others in this thread have agreed with. You think I am treating them differently for reasons I have repeated multiple times. I do not accept your assertions of resolution mechanics, so I do not accept your assertion that I am being inconsistent. By the rules interpretations I have stated, I am being very consistent. I DO NOT NEED a reason why I treat them differently, because I DO NOT treat them differently.

Argue the interpretation of my premises all you want. Accusations of inconsistency are erroneous. By my interpretations of actions and resolution mechanics I am consist in my adjudications of the three scenarios. By your interpretation of actions and resolution mechanics I am not. I freely acknowledge this.

You pointing out that "fact" as proof that I am wrong or not serious in my posts doesn't address the meaningful areas of disagreement. Is the resolution of dropping to zero or fewer hit points part of the attack resolution? Is the application of the unconscious and dying conditions part of the resolution of dropping to zero or fewer hit points?

I quoted the rules that, I believe, support my answers to those 2 questions (No and Yes respectively, if you were still not certain). Please be so good as to answer those two questions with supporting rules citations.

I promise you that we agree on the rest of the rules on interrupts, those two questions are the heart of why I rule one way on Bear's Endurance and you rule the other.

 

[DracoSuave]

On a lighter note, me and KarinsDad are agreeing on something and that happens so rarely that it should be declared a holiday.

 

[Gryph]

On a lighter note, me and KarinsDad are agreeing on something and that happens so rarely that it should be declared a holiday.

I guess that counters the fact that I rarely disagree with you on a rules question.

 

[DracoSuave]

This thread is BACKWARDS.

HAROLD CAMPING WAS RIGHT

 

[KarinsDad]

Argue the interpretation of my premises all you want. Accusations of inconsistency are erroneous. By my interpretations of actions and resolution mechanics I am consist in my adjudications of the three scenarios. By your interpretation of actions and resolution mechanics I am not. I freely acknowledge this.

To cut you a fair shake, I went back and re-read all of your posts on this topic.

The bottom line is that you haven't actually posted any real rules that indicate that the action is 100% totally resolved the moment damage is calculated and applied.


In reality, the action is resolved when everything for that action is finished. Not some of it. All of it. It's not when the attack roll and damage is resolved, it's when the action is resolved.

The target is damaged, stunned, slid, has made hazard rolls, and all immediate interrupts are totally finished and complete.

How can the action be totally resolved if an immediate interrupt on that action has not yet been resolved? This is illogical.


Let's look at other rules:

"An immediate reaction lets you act in response to a trigger. The triggering action, event, or condition occurs and is completely resolved before you take your reaction"

An immediate reaction occurs after the action, event, or condition is COMPLETELY resolved. Hence by definition, an immediate interrupt occurs BEFORE the action, event, or condition is completely resolved.

If the action is not completely resolved when a PC goes to zero hit points, then it can be an immediate interrupt. We know for a fact that the PC's state changes to dying, the PC falls unconscious, and other things can occur after the PC drops to zero hit points. Hence, your conclusion that the action is completely resolved before the PC falls to zero hit points is in error and does not follow from the rules.

Your rules quotes did not prove otherwise. By definition, having the PC go below zero IS part of the resolution of an action. If it were not, that trigger could only exist for an immediate reaction. Since it exists for an immediate interrupt, it must be handled before we go to the next action for the character. It's still part of the overall resolution of the original action.

You are adding artificial rules where none exist.


Let's use an example.

A PC has 10 hit points.

The PC gets hit and takes 15 hit points.

The PC is at -5 hit points.

According to you, the action resolution is complete.

But, it isn't quite 100% complete yet:

1) The PC falls unconscious.

2) An immediate interrupt from a different PC can occur when the PC falls unconscious.

3) The PC falls prone.

4) An immediate interrupt from a different PC can occur when an ally falls prone. That interrupt could be a heal that prevents the PC from being below zero and from falling prone.

5) The PC is dying.

6) An immediate interrupt from a different PC can occur when an ally is dying.

7) Any effects of the power that occur after the attack portion of the action are then resolved. There are a ton of creature powers that allow the creature to shift after the attack.

The action isn't finished until it is 100% complete. Not when it is mostly complete.


One flaw in your logic is that you are discussing the attack resolution at one point in your argument, and the action resolution at another.

"If an interrupt invalidates a triggering action, that action is lost."

It's when the action is invalidated, not just when the attack is invalidated. The attack might be totally successful, the PC drops below zero hit points, and then the Warlord pulls out Courageous Insight and the PC is no longer even hit.

Oops. This power just went backwards in time and removed the hit when a PC fell to zero.

I guess at least one designer doesn't agree with your interpretation.

 

[Gryph]

To cut you a fair shake, I went back and re-read all of your posts on this topic.

The bottom line is that you haven't actually posted any real rules that indicate that the action is 100% totally resolved the moment damage is calculated and applied.


In reality, the action is resolved when everything for that action is finished. Not some of it. All of it. It's not when the attack roll and damage is resolved, it's when the action is resolved.

The target is damaged, stunned, slid, has made hazard rolls, and all immediate interrupts are totally finished and complete.

How can the action be totally resolved if an immediate interrupt on that action has not yet been resolved? This is illogical.

I never said that an action is totally resolved when damage is calculated and applied. In fact I specifically quoted the rule that stated other conditions and effects specified in the power description were also applied as part of the action resolution. You didn't do a very good job of re-reading my posts.

I did say that I interpret the rules on attack resolution to come to an end when the specific damage and effects described by the power have been applied and that those effects to not include the whole chain of effects that start with "when you drop to zero or fewer hit points". I freely admitted in my first post quoting the attack resolution rule and continue to do so, that I am making a logically inference, that because the rules of attack resolution are very complete in describing damage expressions, forced movement, ongoing damage and other conditions, but specifically do not discuss the consequences of hit points being reduced to zero or fewer, that those consequences are not part of the attack resolution.

Let's look at other rules:

"An immediate reaction lets you act in response to a trigger. The triggering action, event, or condition occurs and is completely resolved before you take your reaction"

An immediate reaction occurs after the action, event, or condition is COMPLETELY resolved. Hence by definition, an immediate interrupt occurs BEFORE the action, event, or condition is completely resolved.

If the action is not completely resolved when a PC goes to zero hit points, then it can be an immediate interrupt. We know for a fact that the PC's state changes to dying, the PC falls unconscious, and other things can occur after the PC drops to zero hit points. Hence, your conclusion that the action is completely resolved before the PC falls to zero hit points is in error and does not follow from the rules.

Immaterial to the matter at hand.

Your rules quotes did not prove otherwise. By definition, having the PC go below zero IS part of the resolution of an action. If it were not, that trigger could only exist for an immediate reaction. Since it exists for an immediate interrupt, it must be handled before we go to the next action for the character. It's still part of the overall resolution of the original action.

If by definition then you can give me a direct rules quote showing that definition, right? I'd like to see it, cause I went looking for it and couldn't find it. If you can show me the rule making that part of the definition of action resolution, I will happily agree that your interpretation is correct and I have been wrong.

Let's use an example.

A PC has 10 hit points.

The PC gets hit and takes 15 hit points.

The PC is at -5 hit points.

According to you, the action resolution is complete.

But, it isn't quite 100% complete yet:

1) The PC falls unconscious.

2) An immediate interrupt from a different PC can occur when the PC falls unconscious.

3) The PC falls prone.

4) An immediate interrupt from a different PC can occur when an ally falls prone. That interrupt could be a heal that prevents the PC from being below zero and from falling prone.

5) The PC is dying.

6) An immediate interrupt from a different PC can occur when an ally is dying.

7) Any effects of the power that occur after the attack portion of the action are then resolved. There are a ton of creature powers that allow the creature to shift after the attack.

The action isn't finished until it is 100% complete. Not when it is mostly complete.

Yep, show me the rule that defines all of those steps as part of the action resolution and I will reverse my position.

One flaw in your logic is that you are discussing the attack resolution at one point in your argument, and the action resolution at another.

"If an interrupt invalidates a triggering action, that action is lost."

It's when the action is invalidated, not just when the attack is invalidated. The attack might be totally successful, the PC drops below zero hit points, and then the Warlord pulls out Courageous Insight and the PC is no longer even hit.

Oops. This power just went backwards in time and removed the hit when a PC fell to zero.

I guess at least one designer doesn't agree with your interpretation.

Here's the trigger from that power: Trigger: An ally drops to 0 hit points or fewer from an enemy’s attack that doesn’t target you.

Doesn't really support your stance. That trigger is clearly tied to the attack not just to the loss of hit points.

And yeah from the description of the effect and trigger it interrupt's the attack resolution. Since the trigger was written very different from the Bear's Endurance trigger, it doesn't really have any bearing on the other issues.


Oh, and no it didn't go back in time. It clearly interrupted the attack resolution in progress. Didn't need to go back in time to get the job done. It just had to stop time for an immediate action.

 

[KarinsDad]

Here's the trigger from that power: Trigger: An ally drops to 0 hit points or fewer from an enemy’s attack that doesn’t target you.

Doesn't really support your stance. That trigger is clearly tied to the attack not just to the loss of hit points.

And yeah from the description of the effect and trigger it interrupt's the attack resolution. Since the trigger was written very different from the Bear's Endurance trigger, it doesn't really have any bearing on the other issues.

Nonsense. Now I know you are just arguing to argue.

Anyone who looks at this power objectively knows that the "from an enemy’s attack that doesn’t target you" is a limitation on the trigger. This power cannot be used on attacks that target the Warlord.

That's a limitation on which type of attack the immediate interrupt can apply to, it is not the trigger itself.

The trigger itself is "An ally drops to 0 hit points or fewer".

Sorry dude, but now you are just blowing smoke.