How to resolve multiple "at the start of your turn" effects and miss damage

[MortalPlague]

In other cases, letting regeneration heal him first before taking damage so he isn't reduced to 0.

Actually, on page 268 of the PHB, it has a listing for turn sequence. Ongoing damage is the very first thing applied, followed by regeneration. Then "other effects".

**EDIT** Ah, I didn't see page two of this thread. However, the list seems to read as an ordered list. Each item says "You take ongoing damage now" or "You regain hit points now". That reads as if it takes place in the indicated sequence.

 

[MrMyth]

Actually, on page 268 of the PHB, it has a listing for turn sequence. Ongoing damage is the very first thing applied, followed by regeneration. Then "other effects".

**EDIT** Ah, I didn't see page two of this thread. However, the list seems to read as an ordered list. Each item says "You take ongoing damage now" or "You regain hit points now". That reads as if it takes place in the indicated sequence.

Yeah - it certainly doesn't absolutely declare it happens in order, but the language implied it to me. And, if one is looking for guidance on an order of effects, the list seems a good place to start.

And yes, you will still have to decide what happens when two effects are happening in the same step - and letting the acting player decide tends to be how my group rolls with it. Or, occasionally, letting the abilities themselves determine things - Warden's Font of Life is explicit about pre-empting ongoing damage saves.

 

[MrMyth]

I've never said 'the rules don't matter'. I've said, there cannot be a rule for everything. And if there is no rule for something, a DM will have to make a judgement call. Therefore a rules forum is a good place to ask other DM's how they'd rule it.

Sure, but you did basically tell someone, who was trying to actively discuss what the core rules themselves said, that they had no place in this discussion: "Sounds like it's time for you to move on, then."

That was largely the reason I responded - it seemed like an active statement for someone to basically 'get out', because they didn't agree with DracoSuave's declaration that the only correct answer is "whatever the DM feels like at the time."

Which, yeah, pretty much came across as saying 'the rules don't matter'.

I'm all for seeing how other DMs are handling the situation, and looking at far more than just the rules themselves for how to resolve situations like But I also think there were elements in the rules that were still worth looking at, and the response to just ignore them, and that the written rules were meaningless beside a DM's judgement call, was of little use to the actual discussion at hand.

Is this the place to ask for an official rules amendment? Well.. no, I'd imagine that would be the WotC forums or via e-mail. But it is the place to ask for what the rules might actively say about an issue, and I don't think there is anything wrong with doing just that.

 

[Jhaelen]

Sure, but you did basically tell someone, who was trying to actively discuss what the core rules themselves said, that they had no place in this discussion: "Sounds like it's time for you to move on, then."

Well, that was a direct reply to this:

If I find a game has poor rules, I don't fix them, I move onto another game.

If he thinks a game has poor rules because there isn't a rule to cover everything, then it's indeed time to move on. Though, I'd be curious to know what rpg might fulfill this criterion.

You're right, though, I got a bit carried away when I replied. Sorry about that - it tends to happen when a post annoys me.