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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gryph" data-source="post: 5725994" data-attributes="member: 98071">The effect of Bear's Endurance clearly changed the trigger. After it fires, by my ruling, the character is no longer below zero hit points. Not very impossible after all.  Not in English it doesn't  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.   Mechanically, there is at least the requirement to declare the action to start the resolution of the action. This declaration is all that is needed for Combat Challenge to work correctly. The shift started with the declaration to take a move action to shift and the Fighter's attack happens before he actually changes squares and the shift resolves. Your confusion is that you want to wrap a whole chain of causality into one atomic whole starting with an action declaration. The rules don't support that interpretation. Your own earlier post with a huge list of steps to an attack, tacitly admit that there isn't an unsplittable unit of action. The fact that there are interrupts that trigger on "being attacked", "being hit", "taking damage", "forced to move" lend weight to the action being broken into discrete sections. In 10 pages of rules on taking an action in combat, pages that include how to make damage calculations, how to apply conditions and what those conditions do, why is there no reference to "if the damage drops your opponent to zero or fewer hit points" your opponent is dead or dying? Unless, those rules were seperated from the action resolution rules because the designers did not intend for them to be read as part of the action resolution rules. I get that you do not agree with my interpretation that "dropping to zero hit points or fewer" is not part of the attack resolution. You can rule anyway you wish at your table. I do not understand why you refuse to acknowledge that I have offered clear explanation of why I interpret that way, supported by direct and implied rules citations. Instead you thow up accusations of inconsistency of my interpretation, an inconsistency that only exists from your viewpoint of the "zero or fewer" resolution being part of the ation resolution. I am not being inconsistent in the context of my rules interpretation. You can not claim to disprove me because my use of the interrupts is inconsistent by your interpretation of interrupts. You have to prove your interpretation on its own merits using your own rules quotes. Specifically, show me where in the rules, either directly or by inference, the entire chain from action declaration to a PC lying unconscious and dying is one mechanical resolution rather than a series of discrete sections.</blockquote>

Verification