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: 5726381" data-attributes="member: 2011">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.</blockquote>

Verification