Multiple effects

[James McMurray]

Yup, but how about this:
1. Ongoing 10 fire.
2. Ongoing 5 fire with a -11 save penalty.
You have fire resist 5.

Now, you can't make the save vs. the ongoing 5, but it won't hurt you ... and since the ongoing 10 is the same type, do you die from it?

As GM, you don't even mention the second effect, since it effectively doesn't exist. Although you may mention it just to let the player know their fire resistance is doing its job. Since #1 is the only one that can actually do anything, it must be the strongest effect, and therefor takes precedence.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Eh, you could have fire resist 5 just from your armour, which you might take off sometime .. so you need to know.
You get to know about every effect on you.

I'm trying to argue for the position of:
If you take 20 instances of ongoing 5 fire, you only take 5 fire damage a turn, but you should still have to save against all 20 effects separately.

 

[James McMurray]

I'm not sure why you'd want to add that amount of complexity and almost assured death to the game, but I don't see anything in the rules preventing that interpretation should you choose it.

I think only the most sadistic GMs and masochistic players would want to do it, but that's just me. If it's fun for you and your group, go for it.

 

[MrMyth]

My view:

1) If you are affected by a redundant condition, this does not result in you needing to make multiple saves to get out of it. Similarly, if one condition overrides another (10 poison damage replacing 5 poison damage), only the bigger effect is still in play.
2) If you are affected by two highly-similar conditions, even the tiniest game-relevant difference is enough to requier seperate saves.

Examples:

Example 1) You are suffering from 10 Ongoing Fire Damage (save ends). An enemy hits with an attack that deals 5 Ongoing Fire Damage (save ends). These do not stack, and you make a single save against ongoing fire damage each round - once it is made, you are no longer taking ongoing fire damage.

Example 2) You are suffering from 10 Ongoing Fire Damage (save ends). An enemy hits with an attack that deals 5 Ongoing Fire Damage and Dazes (save ends both). The ongoing fire damage does not stack, but you are still suffering from both conditions, and each round both take 10 fire damage and are dazed. Each round, you save once against the 10 ongoing fire damage, and once against the 5 ongoing fire damage + daze. If you save against the 10 ongoing fire damage, you are now dealing with the full effect of the second ability, and taking 5 ongoing fire damage and dazed until you save against that effect.

 

[James McMurray]

I'm not sure why you'd want to add that amount of complexity and almost assured death to the game, but I don't see anything in the rules preventing that interpretation should you choose it.

I think only the most sadistic GMs and masochistic players would want to do it, but that's just me. If it's fun for you and your group, go for it.

 

[hailstop]

My view:

1) If you are affected by a redundant condition, this does not result in you needing to make multiple saves to get out of it. Similarly, if one condition overrides another (10 poison damage replacing 5 poison damage), only the bigger effect is still in play.
2) If you are affected by two highly-similar conditions, even the tiniest game-relevant difference is enough to requier seperate saves.

Examples:

Example 1) You are suffering from 10 Ongoing Fire Damage (save ends). An enemy hits with an attack that deals 5 Ongoing Fire Damage (save ends). These do not stack, and you make a single save against ongoing fire damage each round - once it is made, you are no longer taking ongoing fire damage.

Example 2) You are suffering from 10 Ongoing Fire Damage (save ends). An enemy hits with an attack that deals 5 Ongoing Fire Damage and Dazes (save ends both). The ongoing fire damage does not stack, but you are still suffering from both conditions, and each round both take 10 fire damage and are dazed. Each round, you save once against the 10 ongoing fire damage, and once against the 5 ongoing fire damage + daze. If you save against the 10 ongoing fire damage, you are now dealing with the full effect of the second ability, and taking 5 ongoing fire damage and dazed until you save against that effect.

I think this is the way I see it too. I just couldn't find it in the rules.

 

[MrMyth]

I think this is the way I see it too. I just couldn't find it in the rules.

There are a couple areas that imply it, though I don't think I found anything that states it in an entirely clear fashion.

PHB page 278 says the following:
"The Same Type of Ongoing Damage: If effects deal ongoing damage of the same type, or if the damage has no type, only the higher number applies. Example: You’re taking ongoing 5 damage (no type) when a power causes you to take ongoing 10 damage. You’re now taking ongoing 10 damage, not 15."

"Overlapping Durations: If a target is affected by multiple powers that have the same effect but end at different times, the effect with the most time remaining applies."

Again, doesn't fully state it all outright, but seems to indicate identical effects replace rather than stack.

 

[deleteme123456]

Re: overlapping durations.

Which is longer? "Until the end of [Player Character's next turn]" or "Save ends"?

Take some power, I don't know what but I'm sure it exists, that says "Creature is dazed until the end of your next turn."

Now your friend hits it and causes "Dazed (save ends)".

Now the monster acts (dazed). EOT it throws a 15 on its save and you're not an orb wizard so that actually works. Dazed or not?

 

[James McMurray]

If one would went away and the other stuck around, where's the difficulty in determining which lasted longer?

 

[MrMyth]

Re: overlapping durations.

Which is longer? "Until the end of [Player Character's next turn]" or "Save ends"?

It frustrates me to no end that they didn't give an order of precedence for this question!

On average, (save ends) will typically be longer. But it also has the potential to be shorter, if they save right away.

This is probably a case where I'd keep both (even though the rules tell me to do otherwise).