Effects and conditions stack

[sfedi]

Another point to add to CapnZapp argument:

Balancing monsters

If 5 ongoing stacks with other ongoing, it's hard to measure how much output damage the monster has.

5 ongoing damage is roughly equivalent to 9 damage.
Example: 2d4 + 15 damage would be equivalent to 2d6 + 4 + 5 ongoing damage

Now, if you add the "don't stack" rule, suddenly this equivalence is no longer true.

 

[Nebulous]

I've also ruled at times that stacked conditions, such as Dazed twice (or more) causes a cumulative -1 or -2 penalty to the saving throw to remove them. So you only roll once, but it's harder to shake. Either way, i don't know what the official ruling on this is.

 

[eamon]

Another point to add to CapnZapp argument:

Balancing monsters

If 5 ongoing stacks with other ongoing, it's hard to measure how much output damage the monster has.

5 ongoing damage is roughly equivalent to 9 damage.
Example: 2d4 + 15 damage would be equivalent to 2d6 + 4 + 5 ongoing damage

Now, if you add the "don't stack" rule, suddenly this equivalence is no longer true.

Even when you "stack", it still doesn't hold true: Since the damage overlaps, but you still get a chance to save even while the effect is essentially redundant, the average "effective" duration per effect of overlapping effects is less than that of a single effect.

 

[sfedi]

Even when you "stack", it still doesn't hold true: Since the damage overlaps, but you still get a chance to save even while the effect is essentially redundant, the average "effective" duration per effect of overlapping effects is less than that of a single effect.

Oh, I didn't meant that.

I meant two full blown 5 ongoing damage.

That is, if you have two ongoing 5 fire damage, you receive 5 damage both times, and make two saves.

 

[Mesh Hong]

I've also ruled at times that stacked conditions, such as Dazed twice (or more) causes a cumulative -1 or -2 penalty to the saving throw to remove them. So you only roll once, but it's harder to shake. Either way, i don't know what the official ruling on this is.

I agree that this is another example of a logical approach, that is not that difficult to track.

 

[CapnZapp]

Oh, I didn't meant that.

I meant two full blown 5 ongoing damage.

That is, if you have two ongoing 5 fire damage, you receive 5 damage both times, and make two saves.

For the record: this is neither how the regular rules work nor what I suggest.

If I may risk being insultingly clear:

Per the regular rules the second attack does nothing. You neither take more fire damage nor make more saves. Once you suffer from condition X you are effectively immune against condition X. But not against any variation of X.

Per my suggestion you would track each effect separately, even if they're identical. The effects still don't stack. You just have to save against each attack separately. Regardless of whether X is actually X or just a variation of X.

So in your example, I would take 5 fire damage and then save twice. If I succeed both times, I'm rid of both attacks, and thus take no further damage. If I succeed only once, I'm rid of only one attack, and thus take 5 fire damage the next round as well. And if I fail both saves, I'm back where I started.

The big win compared to the regular rules is that no longer is there two resolution methods: you always save against each attack separately, regardless of the details and what you're already suffering from.

The rules no longer change between two superficially similar encounters.

 

[eamon]

If I may risk being insultingly clear:

Per the regular rules the second attack does nothing. You neither take more fire damage nor make more saves. Once you suffer from condition X you are effectively immune against condition X. But not against any variation of X

I know this discussion has been had before; but my impression was that's it's not that clearcut. It's been a while though - how do come to the conclusion that for general effects with saves (ongoing damage is somewhat peculiar, so not that) when they're applied several times; additional applications have no effect?

IIRC, the only relevant rule is that the duration of the longest effect matters; and you can either interpret that to mean that two "save ends" effects have an identical duration by definition, or you can interpret that to mean that two save ends effects have a varying duration and whichever one you save against last ends up mattering.

Hmm, maybe I'll do some digging later on, I don't remember where this was last discussed.