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: 5726427" data-attributes="member: 98071">In none of those cases to I prevent anything. In all three cases, the event happens, triggers an interrupt so the we, temporarily stop the resolution of the event until after the interrupt is finished, and then finish the resolution of the triggering event, if it is still valid to do so.  You keep adding words and changing the meaning of what I post. My method does not set the "drop below zero in stone" but it does not consider it part of the attack resolution, for the reasons and rules I posted upthread. Only if you accept your premise that resolving "drop to zero or fewer hp" is in fact part of the attack resolution. You and DracoSuave clearly do, I and several other posters, just as clearly do not. The major difference is, several of has have cited rules passages in support of our interpretation and you content to refuse to do so. I stand corrected, here is a rules citation. In fact it is silent on what the trigger resolves means. So I turn to my handy english dictionary and decide they are probably not talking about a chemical process or legislative act, so they probably mean when the triggering event is settled or completed. Now if being below zero hit points is a binary state requiring no settling of the event it can hardly be interrupted at all can it?  The rule says you jump in when it occurs, acting before it settles (resolves). In english there is a strong inference that a triggering event has to involve cause and effect and the interrupt then beings in between the cause and effect. It is able to invalidate the cause if its actions change something about the triggering event, like defense or being healed so no longer below zero hp.  Well, I am making the PC take the damage, yes. The trigger isn't on going unconscious or on dying, it's on dropping hp. I still state and will continue to state, the resolution of dropping to zero hit points is applying the conditions unconscious and dying (and their related conditions, prone, et. al.) Funny, we both consider the rule crystal clear, just not, apparently, the same kind of crystal. I am serious. I have come up with many examples of my valid explanation, examples you don't like but others in this thread have agreed with. You think I am treating them differently for reasons I have repeated multiple times. I do not accept your assertions of resolution mechanics, so I do not accept your assertion that I am being inconsistent. By the rules interpretations I have stated, I am being very consistent. I DO NOT NEED a reason why I treat them differently, because I DO NOT treat them differently.Argue the interpretation of my premises all you want. Accusations of inconsistency are erroneous. By my interpretations of actions and resolution mechanics I am consist in my adjudications of the three scenarios. By your interpretation of actions and resolution mechanics I am not. I freely acknowledge this.You pointing out that "fact" as proof that I am wrong or not serious in my posts doesn't address the meaningful areas of disagreement. Is the resolution of dropping to zero or fewer hit points part of the attack resolution?  Is the application of the unconscious and dying conditions part of the resolution of dropping to zero or fewer hit points?I quoted the rules that, I believe, support my answers to those 2 questions (No and Yes respectively, if you were still not certain). Please be so good as to answer those two questions with supporting rules citations. I promise you that we agree on the rest of the rules on interrupts, those two questions are the heart of why I rule one way on Bear's Endurance and you rule the other.</blockquote>

Verification