Personally, I would like to see Reroll powers re-classified as No Action powers. Here are some examples why:
Exammple 1, PHB p.269
THE END OF YOUR TURN
✦ Saving Throws: You now make a saving throw (page 279) against any effect on you that a save can end.
✦ Check Actions Spent: Some powers and effects can be sustained for multiple turns (see “Durations,” page 278). Check that you spent the action required to sustain a power or an effect during your turn. If you didn’t spend the action, the power or effect ends now.
✦ End Effects: Some effects end automatically at the end of your turn.
✦ No Actions: You can’t take any actions at the end of your turn.
So, under RAW, if you have a Free Action ability that allows you to reroll a Saving throw, you're actually not allowed to use it, as you're not allowed to use any actions during the End of Turn phase.
I found only 1 free action that attempts to let you reroll a saving throw.
That is Dark One's Own Luck, but nothing says it has to be a saving throw you make at the end of your turn. Many things can grant you a saving throw. As this power does much more than just give you the opportunity to reroll a saving throw, I submit that you can only use this power for a saving throw granted during yours or someone elses turn.
I found 5 "No Action" powers that let you reroll or alter a saving throw.
If in this example, the Free action Elven Accuracy was a No Action power, then the first attack (Miss) never happened, as if it was an interrupt.
This is not true. Elven accuracy does make it so that the first miss never happened. It re-rolls the attack roll. It being a Free Action or No Action would make no difference here. Free actions can and do interrupt. If they didn't, Elven Accuracy would be useless. All that making it a No Action power would do is make is usable while you're petrified or stunned or surprised or unconscious, which seems rather unnecessary considering you can't attack when inflicted with these conditions anyways...
As for the rest, I really don't see the point. Maybe they don't want certain re-rolls to be made when you can't take any actions, and maybe they do want other re-rolls to be made even when you can't take actions. I don't see a problem with that. It sounds more like a deliberate balancing factor to me, and I don't see a single thing broken about it.
EDIT: I was also going to ask about these supposed free action saving throw re-rolls you references, as I couldn't think of any, but Suoitidure already covered that. One power is not enough to be concerned about, especially not when it does still give you benefits such as if you are allowed saving throws during times other than the beginning or end of your turn.
This is not true. Elven accuracy does make it so that the first miss never happened. It re-rolls the attack roll. It being a Free Action or No Action would make no difference here. Free actions can and do interrupt. If they didn't, Elven Accuracy would be useless.
Yes, Free actions can and do interrupt, but with no solid distinctions as to whether they should indeed be Interrupts, or Reactions, or replacements.
Granted, most times it's obvious what order things should happen in.
But for the times it's not clear, for the times when you have conflicts. Wouldn't a "No Action" reroll be much clearer than Free Action (which could be an interrupt, a reaction, or in place of)
Personally, I also like the idea of Free Reactions, Free Interrupts, as that might make things clearer. But I haven't thought about it enough to give a clearly defined distinction between the two, except for some examples:
- Elven accuracy = Free Interrupt
- Swift Charge = Free Reaction
- Press the Advantage (Rogue Daily 1) = Free Reaction
Hmmm........
But for the times it's not clear, for the times when you have conflicts. Wouldn't a "No Action" reroll be much clearer than Free Action (which could be an interrupt, a reaction, or in place of)
No. Making it a No Action power would lead you to the exact same timing questions of when exactly the No Action power is used. The only difference is that one can be used while you are petrified, stunned, surprised, unconscious, beginning your turn, or ending your turn, and the other cannot. Timing-wise, they would be identical and lead to identical questions and conflicts.
Personally, I also like the idea of Free Reactions, Free Interrupts, as that might make things clearer.
It's not really necessary though because free actions generally tell you what they do and how. Elven Accuracy clearly functions as an interrupt (because it occurs during an action), and Swift charge clearly functions as a reaction (because it functions after an event). They could specifically come up with keywords for Free Interrupts and Free Reactions, but it's not really at all necessary so long as free actions keep telling us what they do.
and Swift charge clearly functions as a reaction (because it functions after an event).
No it doesn't.
Swift Charge Barbarian Feature
Encounter ✦ Primal
Free Action Personal
Trigger: Your attack reduces an enemy to 0 hit points
Effect: You charge an enemy.
Bear’s Endurance Warden Utility 6
Daily ✦ Healing, Primal
Immediate Interrupt Personal
Trigger: You drop to 0 hit points or fewer
Effect: You regain hit points as if you had spent a healing surge.
Both of these powers have the trigger of something being reduced to 0 or fewer hit points. The one that is an immediate action is an interrupt, not a reaction.
No it doesn't.
Both of these powers have the trigger of something being reduced to 0 or fewer hit points. The one that is an immediate action is an interrupt, not a reaction.
Fine, then the charge you're granted by Swift Charge happens before the consequences of your dropping the foe to 0 HP have been resolved, including its going unconscious meaning it can make an opportunity attack against you. I'll even re-post this reply in the other thread too.
The point was that some free actions DO specifically say that they happen after an event or before it as opposed to during it. If you'd like another example, how about the Student of the Sword feat which includes a free action that applies to your next attack roll, meaning it must be used before?
Both of these powers have the trigger of something being reduced to 0 or fewer hit points. The one that is an immediate action is an interrupt, not a reaction.
That's because the immediate one wants specifically to grant you hit points before you take the damage so you don't ever drop to 0 hit points from the blow. It specifically wants to make the order of operations: Heal (potenially wasted if it takes you over full hps), Take Damage.
Wheras with Swift Charge, you obviously don't want to charge away before doing the damage. Because then you wouldn't do the damage (if it was truly interrupting).
That's because the immediate one wants specifically to grant you hit points before you take the damage so you don't ever drop to 0 hit points from the blow. It specifically wants to make the order of operations: Heal (potenially wasted if it takes you over full hps), Take Damage.
That's not true. You do drop to 0 HP. If you didn't, then the ability could not trigger. However, because it's an interrupt, it can be used before the results and consequences of its trigger are determined, including falling unconscious as a result of being at or below 0 HP. That's what interrupts do. Their trigger does still occur, but the resolution of its consequences take a break until after the interrupt is over.
Wheras with Swift Charge, you obviously don't want to charge away before doing the damage. Because then you wouldn't do the damage (if it was truly interrupting).
That's not true. You would still do the damage. You would just Swift Charge before the results and consequences of that damage are determined. Again, that's what interrupts do. Therefore, the enemy does not die or go unconscious until after the resolution of Swift Charge and can therefore make an Opportunity Attack as the Barbarian charges away.
Interrupts DO NOT take place before their trigger.
If you just failed a saving throw, your turn might be over, but you can still use your Free Action at the beginning of the next combatant's turn to re-roll it. The trigger is present (whether it be a failed save or a roll you dislike), and there's no rule that prevents you from using your Free Action on the subsequent turn.
EDIT: You would not, however, be able to use a Free Action power if stunned or unconscious. But that's okay.
The trigger is present (whether it be a failed save or a roll you dislike), and there's no rule that prevents you from using your Free Action on the subsequent turn.
This is not true. There most certainly is a rule preventing this, and that is the rule that triggers can't be "saved for later". In other words, when a power is triggered, you must use it immediately and cannot just use it later on whenever you feel like it. If they could just be saved for later, nothing at all could prevent me from dropping an enemy to 0 HP and then using Swift Charge three rounds later. The time from the end of your turn to the beginning of another turn may not sound significant in-game from a fluff perspective, but it is still very mechanically significant.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Lucas Blackstone. :P
That's not true. You do drop to 0 HP. If you didn't, then the ability could not trigger. However, because it's an interrupt, it can be used before the results and consequences of its trigger are determined, including falling unconscious as a result of being at or below 0 HP. That's what interrupts do. Their trigger does still occur, but the resolution of its consequences take a break until after the interrupt is over.
Not at all. The interrupt occurs before the trigger, and can change the result retroactively. That is what interrupt do. Otherwise you would still be hit by an attack after adding +4 to your AC with the Shield utility. So after you interrupt, you use the heal, then take the damage from that new point instead, never reaching 0 hit points.
That's not true. You would still do the damage. You would just Swift Charge before the results and consequences of that damage are determined. Again, that's what interrupts do. Therefore, the enemy does not die or go unconscious until after the resolution of Swift Charge and can therefore make an Opportunity Attack as the Barbarian charges away.
In this case you might be right. The interrupt absolutely would occur before the damage is done ... but it wouldn't occur before the hit happens. So the hit would still result in the damage occuring, even if you are no longer there to do the damage. Which of course makes no sense, but they are pretty careful about not setting up interrupts that can happen in between hits and damage that would result in the target or attacker no longer being there to do it.
Interrupts DO NOT take place before their trigger.
Absolutely they do. PHB 268, Immediate Actions, Interrupts: An immediate action lets you jump in when a certain trigger condition arises, acting before the trigger resolves.
If you change the result of the trigger with an interrupt, it retroactively does not happen (or happens a different way, as in a hit becoming a miss).
The interrupt occurs before the trigger
No, check PHB page 268. Interrupts occur before the trigger resolves. The trigger still happens. Its consequences just don't resolve until later.
Otherwise you would still be hit by an attack after adding +4 to your AC with the Shield utility.
No, you'd be hit by the attack, you'd interrupt the hit by adding more defense, and then when the interrupt is over and you go to resolve the action, you may find that the interrupt has altered the resolution. It's the same thing that happens with Bear's Endurance; you fall to 0 HP, but then interrupt and alter the resolution of the trigger.
So after you interrupt, you use the heal, then take the damage from that new point instead, never reaching 0 hit points.
Impossible. If you never dropped to 0 HP, then you can't trigger Bear's Endurance. You end up with a paradox.
The interrupt absolutely would occur before the damage is done ... but it wouldn't occur before the hit happens.
No, swift charge would need to occur after damage is dealt, because its trigger is that you drop an enemy to 0 HP. It would just occur before any of the consequences of that action are resolved.
So the hit would still result in the damage occuring, even if you are no longer there to do the damage.
That's because you already did the damage. The enemy is already at 0 HP. It's just that the consequences of that won't occur until later because you've decided to interrupt that resolution of those events.
Absolutely they do. PHB 268, Immediate Actions, Interrupts: An immediate action lets you jump in when a certain trigger condition arises, acting before the trigger resolves.
The word you keep missing is "resolves". The trigger still occurs, but you act before the trigger resolves, meaning before its consequences and results are determined.
If you change the result of the trigger with an interrupt, it retroactively does not happen (or happens a different way, as in a hit becoming a miss).
No, it does still happen. It's just that the results of it happening may be altered and new conditions may prevent the result from even occurring.
No, check PHB page 268. Interrupts occur before the trigger resolves. The trigger still happens. Its consequences just don't resolve until later.
The trigger resolving is the same thing as the triggering happening for all interrupt triggers I can think of.
No, you'd be hit by the attack, you'd interrupt the hit by adding more defense, and then when the interrupt is over and you go to resolve the action, you may find that the interrupt has altered the resolution. It's the same thing that happens with Bear's Endurance; you fall to 0 HP, but then interrupt and alter the resolution of the trigger.
Both of those are changing the trigger, by changing it's resolution.
Impossible. If you never dropped to 0 HP, then you can't trigger Bear's Endurance. You end up with a paradox.
Interrupts are a paradox by definition.
The word you keep missing is "resolves". The trigger still occurs, but you act before the trigger resolves, meaning before its consequences and results are determined.
I'm not missing anything. For example, a trigger of hitting is the same thing as resolving the hit step of the attack. The interrupt happens just before that step, and then you repeat the hit step which changes the result (resolution) of the trigger to a different result. Instead of a hit, it's now a miss. The hit never happens.
The trigger resolving is the same thing as the triggering happening for all triggers I can think of.
And I think I've found out problem. We're looking at different definitions of the word "resolve." You think it means that the trigger happens or occurs and that its consequences all just occurs simultaneously with its initiation. I think that it means the trigger goes through the process of having its results and conclusions applied and that these do not have to be applied immediately as the triggering event is initiated.
Now that does become curious, doesn't it?...
Both of those are changing the trigger, by changing it's resolution.
Under my interpretation of "resolution" they're not changing the trigger at all. They're just changing the end results and conclusion of that trigger because I don't think those consequences need to immediately follow with the initiation of the triggering event with no room for the interrupt between.
Interrupts are a paradox by definition.
Under your interpretation of "resolution", yes. Under my interpretation of "resolution", no. :P
EDIT: I think the reason I see it as I do is because of the meaning of the word "interrupt" outside of D&D. When you interrupt somebody speaking, for example, they have started speaking, but you have just stop them aren't letting them finish. Not letting them speak in the first place isn't interrupting them, it's just being a jerk. :P
"For example, an enemy makes a melee attack against you, but you use a power that lets you shift away as an immediate interrupt. If your enemy can no longer reach you, the enemy’s attack action is lost."
A happens
B triggers, invalidating A
A retroactively does not happen
B still has triggered...
The example on PHB268 clearly states that the result of an immediate interrupt can invalidate an triggering action.
I don't think I've ever said otherwise.
A happens
B triggers, invalidating A
A retroactively does not happen
B still has triggered...
Problem here is with line 3. I think "A" did still happen. It's consequences just didn't go through as they otherwise would have. We're having that same problem here with the definition of "resolution"...
Trigger starts
Interrupt happens
Trigger resolves
Obviously under your interpretation that first one would be trigger "happens" not "starts".
I just can't see how that works with a hit.
1) You roll the attack.
2) You compare to the defense. Resolution: Hit (which is also the trigger).
3) You interrupt to change defense. Occurs before resolution (comparison to defense).
4) You compare to the defense. Resolution: Miss.
Step 3 is rewinding to prior to the defense comparison. Then you resolve it again, comparing to defense.
Under your interpretation, there is no way, once you have compared to defense to result in a hit, to go back and change it to a miss. The resolution of the effects of a hit is to do damage, so as I see your interpretation it will always do damage even if you add to your defense before "resolving" that hit, it can never change it to a miss. The resolution causing a hit as a trigger is the comparison to defenses, so under my interpretation you add to defenses before comparing to defenses again, which can change the result of the trigger to a miss.
Not letting them speak in the first place isn't interrupting them, it's just being a jerk. :P
Interestingly, I excel at this kind of jerkery, because I talk so much no one can get a word in edgewise. Although I've been working on it as I get older, so that I can actually have conversations with people.
This is not true. There most certainly is a rule preventing this, and that is the rule that triggers can't be "saved for later". In other words, when a power is triggered, you must use it immediately and cannot just use it later on whenever you feel like it. If they could just be saved for later, nothing at all could prevent me from dropping an enemy to 0 HP and then using Swift Charge three rounds later. The time from the end of your turn to the beginning of another turn may not sound significant in-game from a fluff perspective, but it is still very mechanically significant.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Lucas Blackstone. :P
No time, and no game event, have intervened between your trigger and your use of the power. This is not saving your trigger for later. It's using it immediately. It just happens that immediately is on someone else's turn.
wait for it
"You can take any number of free actions on another combatant's turn."
No one has used a standard action, a move action, a minor action, a free action, or any other kind of action between your trigger and your use of the power. The game mechanic you are referring to clearly does not affect your ability to use the power because of the rule that I just quoted verbatim. You can use free actions on other player's turns.
Imagine the following.
DM: The dragon crits you for 130. You're dead.
You: I use my "Second Chance" racial power.
DM: Sorry, you can't. The dragon ended its turn after it crit you, and that means your trigger is no longer present.
You: ...
The example you provided is not valid since the dragon's attack did not take place during its end of turn phase, but rather during the main section of its turn, therefore you can use your free action before its turn ends.
A saving throw is rolled during the end of turn phase and since you would have to wait until the next person's turn before using a power to re-roll it, you are not acting immediately after the trigger.
2. An immediate interrupt has a trigger.
3. Your position is that the end of a turn is a game event that prevents a trigger from being present.
If the above statements are correct, then my example is valid. If one of the statements is incorrect, please tell me which one.
The reason I believe your example to be invalid is that while the dragon can choose when to end his turn, the halfling can squeeze in his racial ability before the turn ended because the trigger did not occur during the end of the turn.
The reason I believe your example to be invalid is that while the dragon can choose when to end his turn, the halfling can squeeze in his racial ability before the turn ended because the trigger did not occur during the end of the turn.
Right. If the DM says the dragon ends it's turn, the halfling just says "before that happens, I'll use second chance." You have the option to act on a trigger at the time it happens. What you can't do is say: I'll pass on that chance, and instead use it after the end of turn happens. If you pass on the trigger (which you do by allowing the end of turn or some other game event to occur), then you missed the ability to use your power.
"Even if it is beyond your control, the instantaneous end of your turn prevents you from acting on a trigger that is otherwise present, but the instantaneous end of another creature's turn does not prevent you from acting on a trigger that is present because the end of its turn is beyond your control."
Or I'd settle for the less editorializing version:
"The end of your turn prevents you from acting on triggers that are otherwise present, but the end of another creature's turn does not."
Until then I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. You are acting immediately on the trigger, even if it is technically the next creature's turn. "The end of your turn * * * takes no time in the game world." And "You can take any number of free actions on another combatant's turn."
Immediate Interrupt.
Trigger: An ally fails a death saving throw.
Effect: The ally succeeds on the saving throw and can spend a healing surge.
By your logic I can never use this power, because once the death saving throw has been failed, my ally's turn is automatically over. "When you are dying, you need to make a death saving throw at the end of your turn each round."
Although my trigger -- a failed death saving throw -- is present, I cannot act on it because a game mechanic -- the end of my ally's turn -- has intervened to prevent me from doing so.
Now that's a crappy Daily.
The end of a turn only prevents action on triggers that occur during the end of the turn. If a trigger occurs during the main section of the turn, you can take the action that triggers off of it before the turn ends. Yes, as written that power is entirely useless.
That, or your interpretation of the rules is. Like I said, I think we're going to have to just disagree about which.
"The end of your turn * * * takes no time in the game world."
"You can take any number of free actions on another combatant's turn."
I think that between these two rules, it is perfectly clear that the mechanical end of a turn does not prevent you from acting on a trigger that immediately preceded it. You disagree.
Edit: On the bright side, though, I'm sure we both agree that, if the next creature took a standard, move, or minor action, you could no longer use your free action that was triggered at the end of the previous turn.
"The end of your turn prevents you from acting on triggers that are otherwise present, but the end of another creature's turn does not."
PHB2 p218: Powers that are immediate actions (interrupts or reactions) or opportunity actions have a trigger, which defines when you are allowed to use the power.
You either use the power exactly when the trigger happens (resolution point determined by the rules for an interrupt or reaction), or you can't use it at all. If another action starts or a turn ends, you've lost your chance to use the power. In fact, if you move past the trigger point to another part of resolution (for example the trigger is "on hit" and you resolve damage), you lose the ability to use the power.
The trigger defines when you use the power. It either happens at that point, or not at all.
If another action starts or a turn ends, you've lost your chance to use the power.
The bolded part of that sentence is just your assertion; there's no rule that actually says that. Yes, the trigger defines when, in game time, you can use the power. But no game time elapses as the result of the end of your turn; in fact it specifically "takes no time in the game world."
Like Attila, we're just going to have to disagree.
In fact I disagree with most of the other assertions you make in your post as well, but those disagreements are off topic.
The bolded part of that sentence is just your assertion; there's no rule that actually says that. Yes, the trigger defines when, in game time, you can use the power. But no game time elapses as the result of the end of your turn; in fact it specifically "takes no time in the game world."
It doesn't matter that it takes no time in the game world. It's still after the trigger point mechanically. You've still lost your chance, because you are no longer AT the trigger point.
You can disagree all you want, but you are wrong.
Fritz: No, you are.
Sham: No, you are.
Fritz: No, you are.
Sham: No, you are.
Fritz: No, you are.
Sham: This is getting old.
Fritz: No, you are.
Sham: Uh, seriously.
Fritz: No, you are.
Look, you don't even have a rule to back up your assertion. Nowhere do the rules state that the purely mechanical end of a turn operates as an event that somehow puts a trigger out of reach. If anything, the Cleric power I listed suggests that you are wrong, because under your interpretation that power would never work. Even for other powers, the principle in favor of letting players use their powers suggests that you are wrong. But at the end of the day, there's no rule that says I'm right either. We just disagree.
Sham: You are.
Fritz: No, you are.
Fun isn't it?
Look, you don't even have a rule to back up your assertion. Nowhere do the rules state that the purely mechanical end of a turn operates as an event that somehow puts a trigger out of reach. If anything, the Cleric power I listed suggests that you are wrong, because under your interpretation that power would never work. Even for other powers, the principle in favor of letting players use their powers suggests that you are wrong. But at the end of the day, there's no rule that says I'm right either. We just disagree.
The Rule:
PHB2 p218: Powers that are immediate actions (interrupts or reactions) or opportunity actions have a trigger, which defines when you are allowed to use the power.
I've got a rule that shows I'm right. You have nothing to back up your point but your opinion. That's why you are wrong, because you disagree with a rule, with nothing to back it up.
The rules don't have to state that the end of turn puts a trigger out of reach. Because they already state that the action happens at the point of the trigger. If you are at another mechanical resolution point, you are at a different point, and no longer at the point of trigger.
Let me ask you this in a simple way: What order do you put the following mechanical game events in? Start of Turn, Actions on Turn, End of Turn.
If you answer with any order at all, then I am right. Because if something is after the other, once you get to it you are no longer at the prior point. That means that as you proceed from one to the other, you either take a trigger when it happens or miss your chance (by the PHB2 rule).
Also, that Cleric Power works just fine. Ally fails Death Saving throw during his end of turn phase, Cleric uses Immediate Interrupt so Ally autosaves/spends surge. Only you are prevented from taking actions during your end of turn. (PHB 269, End of Turn, No Actions). Other characters can take any actions they want, provided they have a method.
Fun isn't it?
Perversely.
The Rule:
PHB2 p218: Powers that are immediate actions (interrupts or reactions) or opportunity actions have a trigger, which defines when you are allowed to use the power.
I've got a rule that shows I'm right.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
-Inigo Montoya
The rule establishes when you can use a triggered power. But it does not specify whether it is talking about:
1. when in real time, i.e. as dice are rolled and actions are taken on the game table;
2. when in game time, as events are unfolding in the game world where PCs and other creatures are using powers and taking actions; or
3. where in the mechanical structure of the game.
You interpret the rule to mean 3, but that's not the only interpretation. In fact, that is a narrow interpretation that severely restricts PCs ability to use their powers. Lame. If I have a “free action” power that allows me to reroll a d20, including a saving throw, and I have to use it “when” the trigger is present, the natural understanding is that I have to use it when I roll the d20 that I don’t like, even if that has me re-rolling on the start of another creature's turn. It's a free action; I can do that.
You keep asserting that the game mechanics are the relevant way to measure “when” you can use a triggered power, but the rules just don’t say that, no matter how many times you repeat them. Either the first or the second of my listed alternatives makes far more sense to me, and nowhere do the rules state that either of those is wrong.
Some powers just make no sense under your mechanical interpretation. Take the lvl 5 rogue daily power, Surefooted Retort. It’s an immediate interrupt, triggered on being attacked. One of the benefits is that it allows you to ignore forced movement and being knocked prone. But under your mechanical interpretation, by the time you are moved or knocked prone, it is too late to use the power. When you have to decide to use the power, you have no reliable way of knowing whether its primary benefit will actually be useful to you. Again, lame.
Your attempt to explain how Return from Death’s Door can work under your interpretation is inconsistent with the rest of your argument. Once the death save is failed, that character’s turn is mechanically over. It is now the “start of turn” for the next creature. The same is true with my Second Chance example where the dragon voluntarily ended its turn after killing your halfling. Under your interpretation, you can no longer use your immediate interrupt, because you are no longer at the triggering point but at the start of the next creature's turn. The fact that you theoretically could have used the power during the turn that just ended is irrelevant.
But this is pointless. Your interpretation is not precluded by the rules. It just restricts player use of their powers more severely, and is therefore lame. It also makes many powers either less useful (Surefooted Retort, Second Chance) or completely worthless (Return from Death's Door). Again, I think that's lame, but I'm content to disagree on the interpretive question. What I seem to be constitutionally incapable of is suffering your bogus claims that you have a rule that supports your (lame) view and disproves mine. You don't.
Perversely.
That's a perfect description of it.
The rule establishes when you can use a triggered power. But it does not specify whether it is talking about:
1. when in real time, i.e. as dice are rolled and actions are taken on the game table;
2. when in game time, as events are unfolding in the game world where PCs and other creatures are using powers and taking actions; or
3. where in the mechanical structure of the game.
You interpret the rule to mean 3, but that's not the only interpretation.
Of course it's the only interpretation. First of all, 3 and 1 should be the same (although I realize some people play fast and lose with the mechanical structure), and if they aren't, you have to make allowances to do things in the correct order when needed, even if it means going back a bit in what's going on. Other than that, everything is defined within the mechanical structure of the game. That's what the rules are, a definition of how things work within the mechanical structure of the game.
You keep asserting that the game mechanics are the relevant way to measure “when” you can use a triggered power, but the rules just don’t say that, no matter how many times you repeat them.
They don't have to say that explicitly, because that's the only way they can reasonably be used. Either things work within the mechanical structure of the game, or the game isn't a mechanical ruleset.
Take the lvl 5 rogue daily power, Surefooted Retort. It’s an immediate interrupt, triggered on being attacked. One of the benefits is that it allows you to ignore forced movement and being knocked prone. But under your mechanical interpretation, by the time you are moved or knocked prone, it is too late to use the power. When you have to decide to use the power, you have no reliable way of knowing whether its primary benefit will actually be useful to you. Again, lame.
That's quite likely correct. It looks to me like you cannot use the power after you see that the attack will knock you prone or force movement. You use it after the enemy attacks you (which isn't a clearly defined trigger point but is probably before damage and other effects are applied), do damage, and if the attack does try to knock you prone or force movement you gain the additional benefit of not being moved. However, given that "you are attacked" isn't a clearly defined trigger point (unlike many other triggers), there is leeway to argue about where exactly the trigger point occurs in the incoming attack. But wherever you place it in that attack is where you have to use this power.
Your attempt to explain how Return from Death’s Door can work under your interpretation is inconsistent with the rest of your argument. Once the death save is failed, that character’s turn is mechanically over. It is now the “start of turn” for the next creature.
No it isn't. The trigger point is the death save being failed, and anyone that can use an action in response to that trigger can use it before the end of turn is completed. The mechanics of the end of turn do not say, nor the mechanics of the death save say, that the end of turn phase automatically is over once saves are made (or the death save is made). Your argument here fails for the same reason as your dragon argument earlier, you are assuming that the active player, or DM, or rules themselves are forcing the mechanical steps to proceed without allowing valid actions to take place before the current step has ended. None of those do, and a player that has a power that can be used at a trigger point (and is capable of taking that type of action at that trigger point) is always free to use that action at that trigger point.
The same is true with my Second Chance example where the dragon voluntarily ended its turn after killing your halfling. Under your interpretation, you can no longer use your immediate interrupt, because you are no longer at the triggering point but at the start of the next creature's turn. The fact that you theoretically could have used the power during the turn that just ended is irrelevant.
This argument has already been refuted previously in this thread, and I just did again in my last paragraph. The dragons turn does not automatically end just because it finished it's attack. And more to the point, the Second Chance racial power occurs during the dragons comparing roll to defenses step, changing the roll before the action even gets to the damage portion of its attack. So it is not correct on two levels. {If you are arguing that a Halfling can use Second Chance after seeing how much damage he takes, you are wrong. The trigger is being hit, not taking damage.}
Nothing in the way the rules actually work causes any significant problems with any examples you've given so far, except possibly to upset you personally because they don't work as you envisioned. Your interpretation fails because it violates the trigger rule, that you can use triggered actions when the trigger happens. Not afterwards (mechanically), but when it happens (mechanically).