Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 5002663" data-attributes="member: 12731">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!</blockquote>

Verification