Granted Saves and Aftereffect

[smdmcl]

An aftereffect doesn’t begin until after you’ve rolled all your saving throws at the end of your turn. This means you can’t make a saving throw against an aftereffect at the end of the same turn when you saved against the initial effect.

I think this quote from PHB 279 is very relevant to the points being made. Basically, I read it as:

1. You suffer after-effects when you fail your save at the end of your turn. You do not suffer after-effects if you fail a save on someone else's turn as a result of a power, skill or racial ability being used.
2. If a power has cascading after-effects you can not roll saving throws against both ongoing powers at the end of the same turn. For example, Disintegrate (PHB 166) does ongoing 10 and if you save it reduces to ongoing 5. If at the end of your turn you make your save against the ongoing 10 you would have to wait until the end of your next turn to save against the ongoing 5.

Basically, this is the way I see the rule working best in my game so I'll probably continue to run it exactly as we have been doing.

 

[James McMurray]

I'll point out again that what's being discussed here is not aftereffects, at least not as far as the rules define them. Any rule that uses the word "aftereffect" (such as PHB 279) has no bearing on how something that gets worse if you fail a save works. If a power has an aftereffect, it will say "Aftereffect: ___" in its description.

That said, I have no problem with a house rule saying that an effect which grants a save cannot worsen your condition. I did something similar in my epic game. The PCs had to go through an area in the negative material plane where the entropy was so strong they were required to make saves vs. death every round. I said that any power that grants an immediate save with a bonus would instead apply that bonus to the person's save at the end of their next turn.

 

[keterys]

A house rule I suggest is the one mentioned - that if there is a 'Failed Save' type mechanic attached to an effect, that a bonus save not trigger it. Whether it's hobgoblins immediate with Sleep or Shake It Off for a beholder's eye ray.

For Aftereffects, you can end up in weird situations if you let people get rid of the effect then trigger the affereffect later... but do whatever you want there. It's just not what's being described.

Easy way to tell the difference: Aftereffect is when you _succeed_ at a save, and a failed save repurcussion is when you _fail_ a save

 

[Mengu]

If you cast sleep on a group of hobgoblins they will have the same chance of falling asleep with or without this ability. The only effect that this power would grant a hobgoblin against a spell such as sleep is that they would either throw off the effect of the slowed condition sooner (and not fall asleep) or fall asleep sooner. The power does not make them any more resiliant to sleep.

Also, a cleric using a power or skill to grant a member of their party an additional save only to have them fail and succumb quicker seems wrong. That just does not seem to be be working right to me.

I had the same problem initially, but after seeing this scenario in action, and a bit more analysis, I disagree. Saving throws are a duration mechanic. Any bonus saving throw shortens that duration. For instance, the hobgoblin in question might fail his first save, fall asleep, make another save at the end of his turn, and wake right back up. This is much more beneficial to the hobgoblin than failing a save at the end of his turn, sleeping though every other initiative, until the end of his next turn, when he gets to make the second save and wake up.

Regardless of whether the condition gets worse or not with a failed save, it is almost always better to get it over with faster with extra saves. Imagine this, without those extra saves that you failed, you would have been failing your regular saves and be suffering much longer.

So while at first it seems wrong that a bonus save should have a detrimental immediate effect, it really is just reducing the duration of whatever penalties you may be suffering, which is a good thing.

 

[keterys]

Mengu, this is not true for many failed save effects. I'd say most, even.

 

[James McMurray]

Mengu, this is not true for many failed save effects. I'd say most, even.

Such as?

Unless it has a stacking effect when you fail (like Death saves), it's pretty much always better to have more than one save to get rid of it. The vast majority of saves are simply "save ends." How is it not good to have a shot at getting rid of these earlier?

 

[Mengu]

Mengu, this is not true for many failed save effects. I'd say most, even.

There are 7 or so powers in the MM (out of 16 or so powers that have a first failed save condition), that it's not true for. In these 7 cases, failed saves result typically in unconsciousness or petrification with no save (sometimes even death). But for such powers, the benefit of a save with a bonus from a paladin or warlord, still outweighs the benefit of a single activation.

However I'll concede the point that for those 7 powers, failing a save before you get an activation, will indeed be an unfortunate use of a bonus save.

 

[keterys]

There are 7 or so powers in the MM (out of 16 or so powers that have a first failed save condition), that it's not true for. In these 7 cases, failed saves result typically in unconsciousness or petrification with no save (sometimes even death). But for such powers, the benefit of a save with a bonus from a paladin or warlord, still outweighs the benefit of a single activation.

However I'll concede the point that for those 7 powers, failing a save before you get an activation, will indeed be an unfortunate use of a bonus save.

If you gain a significant chance to succeed (such as a +5 to your roll from a warlord or paladin) or there is no penalty for failing, then sure, taking a save is great. But ignoring those situations and focusing on situations only where it's just another save (sacred flame, hobgoblin, heal check, etc) and there is a repurcussion for failure...

Essentially I think you and I disagree on how much it matters to lose your actions and ability to take a normal turn _now_ instead of later. Like your Sleep example - the hobgoblins who fall unconscious immediately, then get coup de graced, or then can't move out of the way for the next area effect or getting swamped by defenders... are in worst state than the ones who can take a normal turn, maybe take out an attacker, maybe get to safety, then fall unconscious.

Special:
Gorgon: So, it dazes and slows and if you fail _once only_, it instead immobilizes, and for many characters that's an improvement! That second failed save to petrify (no save) is bad news, though.

Bad!:
Basilisk: Immobilize before chance to move can be bad, and petrify (no save) is all bad.
Beholder: Lose ability to move, deal damage, act at all, or die. Badness abounds.
Ancient Green Dragon: Lose actions then lose ability to attack...
Drow: Lose damage output, then fall unconscious (no save for encounter). Not good...
Gibbering Orb: Immobilize, then die. Especially cruel if you've been hit by the -5 to saves ray first. Though potentially at epic Dying can _sometimes_ be good, I'm going to assume it's still considered bad
Night Hag: Unconsciousness (no save). All bad!
Medusa: Immobilize before chance to move, and petrify (no save)...
Dark Naga: Stuns on failed save is bad.
Oni Night Haunter: Unconscious (no save). All bad!

Often Bad:
Astral Stalker: May immobilize or stun you before you're able to take a move to safety or to allow you to attack. Often bad.
Carrion Crawler: May immobilize or stun you before you're able to take a move to safety or to allow you to attack. Often bad.

Not bad:
Void Slaad: Losing a surge every time you fail, so no harm done there.

In most cases, accelerating down the path of failure is just a bad thing - for you in limiting your actions, or for your allies in removing a round of damage or healing or whatever that you could do, and hp/attacks you could soak.

 

[James McMurray]

So it's "many" or "most" if you ignore the vast majority of things that cause a save? That makes a lot more sense than how I first read the statement.

 

[keterys]

So it's "many" or "most" if you ignore the vast majority of things that cause a save? That makes a lot more sense than how I first read the statement.

Curiously enough, that "vast majority" you speak of varies wildly from group to group, because I'd consider "sacred flame, hobgoblins, and Heal" to be a vast majority from my DMing experience.

Thankfully, the "many" and "most" you quoted from me is purely to do with the _effects_ that have Failed saves, that I enumerated.

Either way, even if you have a bonus it still might not be worthwhile to take a save before getting to take your action in the other cases. It's just more likely to be worthwhile.

And it has little to do with whether I advise adopting a house rule to not give a penalty for failed saves in _all_ cases of bonus saves, and just inflict them at the end of turn saves.

So... yes, you misread my statement