Ghoul Effects Question

[chriton227]

In a game in which I'm a player, we recently encountered some ghouls, and had some confusion about the conditions they inflict. The GM made a ruling in favor of the players, but I'm not sure it was correct according to the RAW.

When a ghoul hits with it's basic attack, it inflicts an Immobilized (Save Ends) condition. It has a separate at-will attack it can use against Immobilized, Stunned, or Unconscious targets that inflicts a Stunned (Save Ends) condition.

Let's say Bob the Fighter is fighting a ghoul and gets hit by the basic attack. He is Immobilized and at the end of his turn, he gets to make a save to end the effect. Bob rolls a 3 and fails to save. The next round, the ghoul hits Bob with it's other at-will, inflicting the Stunned condition. Which of the following is correct:

1) Bob is only Stunned (Stunned superseded Immobilized). He makes a single save at the end of his turn to end the Stunned condition. If he saves, he is neither Stunned nor Immobilized.

2) Bob is Stunned and Immobilized. He makes a single save at the end of his turn to end both conditions. If he saves, he is neither Stunned nor Immobilized.

3) Bob is Stunned and Immobilized. He makes a single save at the end of his turn to end the stunned conditions. If he saves, he is no longer Stunned, but he is still Immobilized. He can save on future rounds to end the Immobilized condition

4) Bob is Stunned and Immobilized. He makes a separate save to end each condition at the end of his turn. Depending on which (if any) saves he succeeds at, he could be Stunned, Immobilized, both, or neither.

The GM ruled on the spot that the Stunned condition superseded the Immobilized condition, so if a Stunned character saved, they were then neither Stunned or Immobilized (option 1 from above). By my reading of the rules, I think it should have been option 4.

 

[Kordeth]

Your reading of the rules is correct. Since the Immobilized condition doesn't explicitly supersede the Stunned condition, the character is suffering from both. You make a save against each (save ends) effect you're suffering from at the end of your turn separately.

There are, however, a couple of exceptions: ongoing damage, for example, replaces ongoing damage of the same type (e.g. if you're taking ongoing 5 fire damage (save ends) and get hit by an attack for ongoing 10 fire damage (save ends), you're now taking ongoing 10 fire damage (save ends) and make one saving throw against that ongoing fire damage). Also, there are some monsters whose powers specify that they replace earlier conditions; e.g. the medusa. If you're hit by her petrifying gaze, you're slowed (save ends), if you fail the first save you're immobilized (save ends) instead of slowed (save ends). If you pass that save, you're back to A-OK.

 

[Oompa]

Option 4 is indeed the way..

 

[Wik]

Yeah, it's option 4.

And ghouls rock. I'm looking forward to using them in a game, but the correct opportunity hasn't come up yet. But believe me, I have ideas, man...

 

[MarkB]

Yeah, it's option 4.

And ghouls rock. I'm looking forward to using them in a game, but the correct opportunity hasn't come up yet. But believe me, I have ideas, man...

Multiple ghouls flanking a target are just nasty. Unhurt to stunned in one turn.

Ghouls backed up by artillery whose attacks impose appropriate status effects are simply brutal.

 

[-Avalon-]

Yeah, my TPK I did, involved crazed necromancers, and some others...

Almost everything in the room had an immobilize effect, whether melee or ranged... the ghouls locked 4 of the 6 players down first turn, the boss mob dominated one of the others, and things just went downhill from their...

I personally will not use that mix ever again... still feel bad about doing that and not realizing how devastating that tactic was going to be...