Warden L6 Utility "Bears Endurance"

[DracoSuave]

You cannot claim that the attack is divorced from dropping below zero:

"When you reduce a creature to 0 hit points or fewer, you can choose to knock it unconscious rather than kill it. Until it regains hit points, the creature is unconscious but not dying. Any healing makes the creature conscious."

If the creature dropping below zero is not part of attack resolution, then you are not responsible for doing it. As you are not responsible for dropping any creature below zero, you can never decide to kill it or render it unconscious.

And yet, here's a rule, from death and dying, tying dropping to zero directly to the attacker.

Sorry, you're wrong.

 

[Gryph]

You cannot claim that the attack is divorced from dropping below zero:

"When you reduce a creature to 0 hit points or fewer, you can choose to knock it unconscious rather than kill it. Until it regains hit points, the creature is unconscious but not dying. Any healing makes the creature conscious."

If the creature dropping below zero is not part of attack resolution, then you are not responsible for doing it. As you are not responsible for dropping any creature below zero, you can never decide to kill it or render it unconscious.

And yet, here's a rule, from death and dying, tying dropping to zero directly to the attacker.

Sorry, you're wrong.

Thank you. I agree this rule implies a strong connection between attack resolution and dropping below zero. It doesn't quite reach the point of by definition, but then neither did my logic chain that death and dying aren't part of the attack resolution rules.

I still think your order of applying the healing leads to some nonsensical situations where the utility will not have the effect it seems to be clearly intended to have, i.e. keeping your from going unconscious and dying when dropped to zero. But at least I understand why you consider the rules to treat the whole chain as a related sequence.

I will continue to treat the rule above as an exception to the general rule that dropping to zero adds the unconscious and dying conditions, because I believe that rule was added as a narrative aid for players who wished for a none lethal option in combat, rather than being a general rule. But I concede the field, as I said I would do if given a storng rule citation.

I do wish KarinsDad would have at least tried to find this or any rule quote in response to the many times I asked for it instead of making strawman arguments and calling me a troll.

 

[DracoSuave]

I still think your order of applying the healing leads to some nonsensical situations where the utility will not have the effect it seems to be clearly intended to have, i.e. keeping your from going unconscious and dying when dropped to zero. But at least I understand why you consider the rules to treat the whole chain as a related sequence.

On the flip side, it's impossible to claim that affecting going down to zero cannot affect the attack, after all, the attack has not resolved at that stage. q.v. every attack that doesn't end in a Hit line.

 

[Gryph]

On the flip side, it's impossible to claim that affecting going down to zero cannot affect the attack, after all, the attack has not resolved at that stage. q.v. every attack that doesn't end in a Hit line.

Yeah, with going to zero and its effects part of the attack resolution as implied by your rule quote, an interrupt at drop to zero could affect the attack, it just isn't required to.

I still say order of operation is in play, cause the heal doesn't have to happen before the attack, just before the attack finishes resolving .

I'm done now, I promise.

 

[Istar]

How the sam heck can Bear's Endurance heal you from below zero when it's frikken trigger is 'When you drop below zero.' It's nonsense!

If it could, you'd have already dropped below zero which would make it a REACTION. As an INTERRUPT it must occur before the event. If the damage has been resolved, you are below zero, so it must occur before the resolution of damage. There's no 'in the middle of dealing damage'. You are either undamaged, and above zero, or damaged, and below zero.

And, even if you entertain the rediculous notion that you're 'damaged and above zero' you certainly CANNOT entertain the notion that you're simultaneously 'below zero' and 'before you drop below zero.'

Interrupts happen BEFORE their trigger. If Bear's Endurance were to heal you up to 0, then deal the damage, then it's not happening BEFORE you are below zero. Which means you're not executing interrupts correctly AT. ALL.

Interrupt = Before.
Reaction = After.


By the same logic as delivered here, immediate interrupts which move you out of the range of powers that 'hit or miss' you wouldn't work, because the target selection, and rolling to attack have already been done, so you can't invalidate the attack by rendering the conditions of it impossible.

Such an interpretation is patently false. The rules, in fact, give that scenario as its example of how invalidating an action works. If you do something that changes the parameters of an effect on you through immediate interrupt, that immediate interrupt can change how that effect works. The trigger is not speciifc to damage from attacks. Damage from an aura will still trigger this just fine, and it will occur before the damage is applied, because it can't happen after.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.................................

Yeeha got a big one here, bait line and sinker taken.

Nice large piece of troll bait here on a size 12 hook.

Just wanted more specific clarification, which we now have thanks.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I posed this question to Wizards Customer Service:

What is the intent of this power?

For example: A warden with 50 maximum hit points is currently at 25 hit points. A creature uses an attack power that can only target bloodied enemies and hits for 30 damage. The warden triggers Bear's Endurance. What is the outcome?

1) The warden takes 30 damage and drops to -5 hit points, gains 12 hit points from Bear's Endurance, leaving him at 12 current hit points.

2) The warden gains 12 hit points, then takes 30 damage, leaving him at 7 current hit points.

or

3) The warden gains 12 hit points, putting him at 37 hit points, thus making him an illegal target for the creature's attack, so the creature loses its action.

Their reply:

Thanks for contacting Wizards of the Coast! Your first guess was actually correct, the Warden takes 30 damage and drops to -5 hit points, gains 12 hit points from Bear's Endurance, leaving him at 12 current hit points. So, the attack hits and takes effect, Bear's Endurance triggers once the attack is resolved, and the Warden regains hit points exactly as though he spent a surge (regaining from 0 up).

 

[DracoSuave]

You do realise by their interpretation, if that attack were written like this:

Hit: Deal 1d6+29 damage, and the target is stunned.

That by their definition you couldn't Bear's Endurance?

Or worse:

Hit: Deal 1d6+29 damage
Effect: The target is dazed.

In both cases, when the attack is fully resolved, the interrupt can't trigger, and the trigger has ALSO fully resolved?

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Yes, I do. It sucks to be dazed or stunned. Not a big news flash.

And I don't agree with your use of the term "the trigger has ALSO fully resolved." I think their reply rpoves that a trigger need not be an action. It CAN be an action, but in some cases, like Bear's Endurance, it can merely be a condition.

By their interpretation Bear's Endurance interrupts the "dropped to zero condition," not any portion of the attacker's action. And being dazed or stunned at that point would disallow you from doing so. Sucks for you at that point. Luckily you've got three death saves and other party members that can trigger healing on you with possibly as little as a skill check.

 

[Infiniti2000]

In both cases, when the attack is fully resolved, the interrupt can't trigger, and the trigger has ALSO fully resolved?

I'm not sure why you see it that way. Is there a difference between stunning and going unconscious or are you saying that the customer service reply doesn't consider -5 hp to be unconsciou?

 

[DracoSuave]

I'm not sure why you see it that way. Is there a difference between stunning and going unconscious or are you saying that the customer service reply doesn't consider -5 hp to be unconsciou?

Neither.

This outsourced individual from RightNow, (not WoTC), is claiming that the triggering of an Immediate Interrupt occurs after the attack has resolved.

"Bear's Endurance triggers once the attack is resolved,"

In both those cases, the attack has not resolved--in the first, the stun effect is part of attack resolution, and in the second case, the effect line is part of an attack power, and therefore part of the attack.

Which means, if CS is right, the attack resolves (the target is damaged, and stunned) and then his immediate interrupt triggers (heal up)... by which point he's already damaged, dropped below zero, AND dying, AND unconscious, AND prone.

Which means that he can't take immediate actions. Like Bear's Endurance.

So the interpretation, as they say it, cannot work.

Yes, I do. It sucks to be dazed or stunned. Not a big news flash.

And I don't agree with your use of the term "the trigger has ALSO fully resolved." I think their reply rpoves that a trigger need not be an action. It CAN be an action, but in some cases, like Bear's Endurance, it can merely be a condition.

By their interpretation Bear's Endurance interrupts the "dropped to zero condition," not any portion of the attacker's action. And being dazed or stunned at that point would disallow you from doing so. Sucks for you at that point. Luckily you've got three death saves and other party members that can trigger healing on you with possibly as little as a skill check.

However, when the stunned or dazed conditions apply, they apply AFTER the damage has resolved, which means the target has already dropped to zero. Which means that the resolution of being dropped to zero has already resolved. Which means that the interrupt, by their interpretation, must be resolved after the resolution of said condition.

Which is not how interrupts work... they resolve before the trigger is finished resolving. The CS's interpretation is in direct violation of that simple premise by any interpretation... once the attack has resolved, being dropped to zero has already resolved. Which means that an interrupt cannot be triggered and resolved at that time, by the rules for how interrupts work.

Their interpretation is fully consistant with how reactions work. But if your interpretation has the interrupt resolving after the trigger has done resolving (as theirs clearly does) then it's ignoring the rules source stating that interrupts must resolve before the trigger has done resolving. It's opposite to the rules. The case is pretty clear, they are wrong.

-----

Let's go over the second power, to see why it can't work:

Hit: Deal 1d6+29 damage
Effect: The target is dazed.

Start from the successful resolution of the hit:

Hit line resolves:
Damage effect of 1d6+29 damage... modifiers thrown in, let's say it comes out 34 damage.
34 damage is applied to the target, hit points are subtracted
Target is now below zero.
Target has dropped below zero, so now has the dying condition
Target has the dying condition so now has the unconscious condition
Target is unconscious, so now has the helpless and prone conditions
Hit line has fully resolved
Effect line resolves:
Target is now dazed.
Effect line has fully resolved.
Attack has fully resolved.

CS says you can now use bear's endurance... wait... can't... because the user of the power has dazed and is unconscious.

Taken further, their interpretation means Bear's Endurance cannot work at all. By the time EVERY attack finishes resolving, if you're dropped below zero, you're already unconscious, and cannot use immediate actions.

I don't like CS interpretations that mean the power can never be used.