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: 5725758" data-attributes="member: 2011">And I can say the exact same thing practically word for word for Shield."Therefore it has to happen at the point where the PC has been hit but the final resolution of the "you are hit state", i.e. the damage and other conditions being applied to the character have not."Practically word for word.I add the +4 to AC and Reflex of Shield before damage and conditions are applied. But, the PC is still hit. The PC still has that +4 to AC and Reflex until the end of his next turn, but it does nothing for this attack action because "you are hit" has already been resolved. That's what happens when you treat an immediate interrupt as an immediate reaction (like you are for Bear's Endurance).I'll use your own words "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."Hence, one cannot go back in time and re-calculate a PC being hit when that PC uses Shield. The hit has already occurred. One cannot go back in time.Your own words dude, but just applied to Shield instead of Bear's Endurance. Let me repeat that. Your own words dude.You cannot have it both ways. It cannot be "not going back in time" for the Shield case and "going back in time" for the Bear's Endurance case. There are no explicit rules for handling the cases differently. None of your rules quotes have done this.It cannot be "you are hit" is a step and is not set in stone for resolving the entire action, and "you go to zero hit points" is not a step and is set in stone for resolving the entire action.I cannot comprehend that you do not comprehend that you are treating the two cases differently.Every single little step in the entire process of adjudicating an attack action is a step that can be interrupted. Otherwise, the interrupt rules are inconsistent. One cannot pick and choose which steps can be interrupted and which ones cannot. Calculating damage is part of the resolution of an action. Sliding the target is part of the resolution of an action. Bloodying a target is part of the resolution of an action. You cannot resolve an action merely up to the point in time that a PC is declared HIT. The rest of the steps are part of the resolution of the entire action and an immediate interrupt can invalidate those points in time (i.e. triggers) just like it can invalidate earlier points in time for the resolution of the entire action.I don't have to quote rules quotes. I just have to show where you are being inconsistent by treating the two cases differently (like I just did by using your own words, not once, but twice).The bottom line is that you treat "action resolution" as a point in time part way before the entire action is resolved where an action can be interrupted, but beyond that part way point in time, you treat immediate interrupts as immediate reactions (not completely, it's actually a third type of interrupt that you've created where the trigger cannot be changed, but not quite an immediate reaction).Your "where in the PHB certain rules are located" justifications not withstanding, your logic is flawed.The flaw in your logic is that you are treating the trigger "you are hit" as something not set in stone and reversible while you are treating the trigger "you go below 0 hit points" as something set in stone and non-reversible.You have not actually quoted a rule that allows for that. You just explain where part way in the process of adjudicating the entire action you draw your line and no longer allow the interrupt to be immediate.</blockquote>

Verification