Effects and conditions stack

[CapnZapp]

If you are already dazed, you cannot be more dazed.

For the record, this isn't what I was saying.

My houserule means: If you are already dazed, being dazed again probably results in you being dazed longer.

That is, getting rid of a condition is harder when you need to save twice.

There is no notion of being "more dazed" involved.

For the record, as DM I am responsible for tracking effects on the PCs, I have a dedicated pad that I write down each effect on (when acquired) and cross them off when they have saved.

Wow. You can really save yourself a few brainwaves by off-loading this duty onto your players, did you know that?

I can see what you are saying here, but I think you might have it the wrong way round. A similar effect is a similar effect, it isn't a nerf to only have to save against it once.

Well, that's not exactly my point.

My point is that the game (through this rule) makes an encounter with AAAAA easier than an encounter with ABCDE, purely because chances are that if you suffer from ability A you can still be hit with ability B.

This I call a "nerf" against encounters with several identical monsters.

Of course, some might think it is actually a good idea, because it offers a reason for monsters to diversify.

As for myself, I see no inherent reason why the AAAAA encounter should be significantly easier than other encounters, just because the A condition doesn't stack with itself.

In fact it might be overpowering an encounter if you are having to save against multiple instances of an effect. If you get hit by 4 attacks that also daze then if you have to make 4 saves to shake it off you are certainly going to be under the influence a lot longer, and probably be subject to further attacks that increase the total number of saves required.

No, it can't be overpowered. The DMG guidelines never assigns penalty XP to encounters with several different monsters all capable of throwing out a variation of a condition like Dazed.

If monsters A, B, C, D and E are all worth 1,000 XP; then both encounters AAAAA and ABCDE are worth 5,000 XP.

I see no general design tendency that identical monsters would make a condition overpowered - as far as I can see, such an encounter would be functionally identical to another encounter where all monsters just happen to be able to throw out a variation of one and the same condition.

In other words, just like you might want to keep an eye out for ABCDE encounters where all monsters can stun you, now you also keep an eye out for AAAAA encounters (or DDDDD encounters) because all monsters can still stun you.

In summary, I think this rule is there for simplicity only. Only that for me, it actually feels more like a mess than a solution.

Hence my houserule!

 

[sfedi]

100% agree with CapnZapp.

This is a flaw in the system.

 

[Markn]

CapnZapp

Thats an interesting point about AAAAA vs ABCDE. I hadn't looked at it that way before. I'm going to have to give that some thought.

 

[eamon]

We also play it that identical conditions don't stack - but you do need to save against each instance; so the effect with the longest duration effectively applies. (The rules say that the effect with the longest duration applies but don't elaborate as to exactly what that means).

My motivation is partly consistency with similar but different effects (ie ongoing 5 and slow with ongoing 5 - why would the "and slow" make such a difference?) and for simplicity. In fact, we started playing like this mostly by accident; previously, I'd essentially recapped the whole previous discussion on these boards (which concluded there was a case that ongoing damage required only one save for the reasons hypersmurf is implicitly referring to above), and we tried that. It didn't work; we couldn't keep it straight what stacked with what, and eventually, I just let it slide: getting into rules minutae discussions with an uninterested player on why some effects are merged and others aren't just didn't matter and wasn't productive.

I'm not sure what the rules are meant to say. I do know that there's a very simple no-weird-cases consistency in just letting all effects overlap. Some overlapping effects might stack (ongoing damage with slow, or two different types of ongoing damage); some might not (daze with daze) but none of that matters when you save - you save for each effect seperately. We get a lot of effects, as I'm sure others due too, and I'm very happy with not needing to think about that aspect of them any more.

Because overlapping identical effects also grant multiple saves; this doesn't lead to much pile-on play: it's still not attractive to "pile on" loads of effects since the duration only slightly increases with each extra application of the power; you're better off affecting another target.

 

[Redclaw]

I've always played it the way Mesh Hong does. The way I see it, every decision I make as DM should be about building the fun. If Peter Player makes a saving throw, I want that saving throw to be important. I don't want Peter to say, "a success, not that it matters because I'm still suffering from three more daze effects."

If that's not enough, I like to visualize it as the character shaking himself out of the daze so that he can focus again, or putting out the burning clothes that are dealing ongoing fire damage. Neither of those works for me, visually, with a "I made one save, but failed the other." The fire's out or it's not, and your head is cleared or it's not.

I don't know that there is a clear answer here, and I fully endorse everyone's right to their own approach. This is just how I got to my interpretation.

 

[Trebor62]

We also play it that identical conditions don't stack - but you do need to save against each instance; so the effect with the longest duration effectively applies.

(The rules say that the effect with the longest duration applies but don't elaborate as to exactly what that means).

I think it means that effect (A) ending at end of turn gets taken over by effect (A) save ends. Simple but not always helpful.

Let's say we have effect (B) 10 fire damage end of next turn, and Effect (C) 5 fire damage and dazed save ends both. The rules tells that we dont take 15 fire here, we take 10 fire. I would play it that the daze PC would take the 10 fire damage which would cease at end of turn, and then roll to save against effect (C) 5 fire and dazed to see if it will stay with him.

Hope this helps and makes sense!

 

[Mesh Hong]

For the record, this isn't what I was saying.

My houserule means: If you are already dazed, being dazed again probably results in you being dazed longer.

That is, getting rid of a condition is harder when you need to save twice.

There is no notion of being "more dazed" involved.

Sorry I wan't clear enough. I fully understood the "longer" rather than "more dazed" concept I just didn't express it correctly. I can also appreciate that you might not be effected for that much longer because you are making a save against each occurrence every round, so you have a reasonable chance of removing multiple similar effects.

Like I said I see this as a logical approach, just different to my own.

Wow. You can really save yourself a few brainwaves by off-loading this duty onto your players, did you know that?

It's a question of responsibility really. My general approach is that any person is responsible for the conditions they generate. That means I am responsible for tracking conditions on the players and the players are responsible for remembering conditions on the monsters. This means that me or my players are not gaining an advantage by "accidently forgetting" a condition in the heat of combat, if any of us do it is to our personal detriment not advantage.

In the case of ongoing fire damage say, if I forget a player is taking it then I am the one losing out on the extra damage. If the player was tracking it on themselves and they forgot it then they are the one that would be getting the advantage of not taking damage.

It just seems like a fair approach that allows us to just carry on with the game without worrying about the occasional mistake. It also helps keep everyones attention on whats going on.

Well, that's not exactly my point.

My point is that the game (through this rule) makes an encounter with AAAAA easier than an encounter with ABCDE, purely because chances are that if you suffer from ability A you can still be hit with ability B.

This I call a "nerf" against encounters with several identical monsters.

Of course, some might think it is actually a good idea, because it offers a reason for monsters to diversify.

As for myself, I see no inherent reason why the AAAAA encounter should be significantly easier than other encounters, just because the A condition doesn't stack with itself.

It's an interesting point. Does this mean that if the same creature confers an effect on the same PC two rounds in a row then it adds to the saves? I suppose it must do with your house rule because it might be difficult to track otherwise.

eg: a PC is slowed by an attack, doesn't make the save and then is slowed by the same attack on the next round meaning that the PC now has two lots of slow (save ends) to contend with.

No, it can't be overpowered. The DMG guidelines never assigns penalty XP to encounters with several different monsters all capable of throwing out a variation of a condition like Dazed.

If monsters A, B, C, D and E are all worth 1,000 XP; then both encounters AAAAA and ABCDE are worth 5,000 XP.

I see no general design tendency that identical monsters would make a condition overpowered - as far as I can see, such an encounter would be functionally identical to another encounter where all monsters just happen to be able to throw out a variation of one and the same condition.

In other words, just like you might want to keep an eye out for ABCDE encounters where all monsters can stun you, now you also keep an eye out for AAAAA encounters (or DDDDD encounters) because all monsters can still stun you.

In summary, I think this rule is there for simplicity only. Only that for me, it actually feels more like a mess than a solution.

Hence my houserule!

Again I can see the logic here. This is something I havn't until now given any thought to, everything seemed so simple

Don't get me wrong I think your approach is a valid response to the situation, and is certainly balanced as it applies to PCs and Monsters equally. My concern about it maybe being overpowered is that it is naturally weighted in favour of the monsters because they are more likely to have multiple powers that do the same thing. Again this is not necessarily a bad thing as monsters generally need an edge to make interesting encounters.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yes, but the rules allow for an encounter with one monster Dazing you, the second Weakening you, the third Blinding you, the fourth Dazing and Weakening you, and the fifth Blinding and Weakening you. And all of them could additionally deal out ongoing damage with varying types of damage.

This encounter means that everything stacks.

Now, if you take just five copies of one of the monsters, or even worse, mash them together as a Solo, now nothing stacks.

Still, the two encounters are worth the same XP. Even though one encounter is much much harder than the other.

Players don't need that edge. Solos don't need the implicit nerf. And the game doesn't need the surprising spikes in monster effectiveness (because the ABCDE encounter will of course be more rare than, say, an AAABB one)

This is simply not logical enough for me. Why will Ongoing 5 fire damage and dazed (save ends both) only stack with two of the three below:
a) Ongoing 5 fire damage and immobilized (save ends both)
b) Ongoing 5 fire damage and dazed (save ends both)
c) Ongoing 5 cold damage and dazed (save ends both)

To me, having a rule that says that my initial condition stacks with a) and c) but not b) is actually a complication, not a simplification.

And why does my ongoing 5 fire damage and dazed (save ends both) condition stack with the following two additional attacks??
d) Ongoing 5 fire damage (save ends)
e) Dazed (save ends)

Anyone else that don't understand what is so "simple" about you having to make three separate saving throws against ongoing 5 fire damage, ongoing 5 fire damage and dazed, and dazed?


Also, I can't stand the idea that an elven hunting party is much less effective because they all share the same powers. Agreed, that's fluff, but still.

Sure I can understand the idea that "one save will free me". It's just that it adds onto the burden I feel to create mixed encounters for no good reason.

But most importantly, it avoids cheesy strategies where the blinded player will rush into the middle of the room to draw more blinding attacks, simply because he is now practically immune against any power with the Blinded condition (rather than, say, damage) as the main payload.



In the final analysis, I rejected that rule because to me it 1) didn't simplify 2) raised more questions than it answered 3) made no sense in-game and 4) made the tactical depth of the game more shallow.

Cheers everybody!

 

[Mesh Hong]

Thanks Cap you make an excellent and well justified case for your houserule, (well I say houserule, like always the rules are not sufficiently clear to categorically know whether this is what the designers intended or not).

In fact your arguement and reasoning is so compelling that I will seriously consider adopting this approach as well.

 

[CapnZapp]

Thanks.

To clarify: at least I am myself absolutely certain I am using a houserule, and not the rules as written.