Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5725514" data-attributes="member: 2011">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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification