On going effects and saving throw clarification

[sfedi]

Ongoing effects havo sooooo many issues... it would be nice to have an errata.

Or at least come up with a solid ruling behind the,

Like the problem you have when a Missed Daily is more effective than a Saved Hit.

 

[Stalker0]

Ongoing effects havo sooooo many issues... it would be nice to have an errata.

Except this is not an issue.

The rules are clear on this one.

 

[MrBeens]

Ongoing effects havo sooooo many issues... it would be nice to have an errata.

Or at least come up with a solid ruling behind the,

Like the problem you have when a Missed Daily is more effective than a Saved Hit.

What issues are you talking about, I am curious?
The point raised in the OP is not an issue, the rule is clear.
My group have not had any problems with ongoing effects.

 

[Ryujin]

Generally speaking a creature that has an "save ends" effect on it is going to experience that effect at least once. This is because these effects take place at the beginning of the turn, prior to the end of turn save. If the creature invokes the condition itself, on its turn, then it will get to save at the end of its round as normal, potentially bypassing the effect for its next turn. If the creature has the ability to make an immediate save, o rhas an ability that allows it to save at the beginning of its turn, then it may also avoid experiencing the effect.

 

[Starfox]

Except this is not an issue.

The rules are clear on this one.

Well, the issue is not that the rules are unclear, but that they don't seem reasonable. If you think of the rules in lawyer terms, they are clear and work. If you think of them in lawmaker terms, they don't produce the desired result when it is more desirable to score a miss (until the end of the next turn) than a success (save ends).

I could start spouting wild proposals, but that fits better in the house rules forum.

 

[sfedi]

What Starfox and Ryujin said, basically.

The game values (save ends) effects as higher than (until start/end of XXX turn).
And that simply is not true in several scenarios:
- when the (save ends) is taken during your turn (pointed above)
- when on a Daily hit you make the first save, and you end up with suffering the conidition less than if the attacker have failed the Daily (pointed above)
- against Solos, they have a highly variable performance
- since they are not stackable, it is quite more complicated to estimate the effectiveness of them, specially damage from an ongoing damage effect

You are right though, this not a HUGE ISSUE, they are more quirks, or annoying things that don't really break the game, but they cause a lot of problems for monster design and balancing powers.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, the issue is not that the rules are unclear, but that they don't seem reasonable. If you think of the rules in lawyer terms, they are clear and work. If you think of them in lawmaker terms, they don't produce the desired result when it is more desirable to score a miss (until the end of the next turn) than a success (save ends).

I could start spouting wild proposals, but that fits better in the house rules forum.

Just because a save can end the effect, there is no guarantee the target actually has any chance to make a save out of its turn. Most monsters don't. So it would only be an issue against PCs, and then most monster powers also do not conditions on a miss. It is a corner case.

I suppose a new guideline on condition removal effects might be good, though. As it stands, abilities that allow extra saves against a condition out of turn seemed to be valued lower than abilities that allow saves against a condition that doesn't normally allow a save at all. If this was treated equally, we'd see more powers that simply allow saves against a condition (regardless whether it allows one normally or not). And so the issue would not be particularly interesting.

 

[sfedi]

Just because a save can end the effect, there is no guarantee the target actually has any chance to make a save out of its turn. Most monsters don't. So it would only be an issue against PCs, and then most monster powers also do not conditions on a miss. It is a corner case.

Mmmm, I think you missed the point (if I understood you correctly).

The thing is that ongoing effects don't work well, and conditions in general, don't work well when you impose them in the middle of the target's turn.

As it stands, abilities that allow extra saves against a condition out of turn seemed to be valued lower than abilities that allow saves against a condition that doesn't normally allow a save at all.

Exactly.

And this comes from the fact that (save ends) effects are valued more than "until X of Y turn".

If this was treated equally, we'd see more powers that simply allow saves against a condition (regardless whether it allows one normally or not). And so the issue would not be particularly interesting.

Well, in this case, if (save ends) conditions are supposedely more valuable, then having them apply to "until X of Y turn" should be balanced. Shouldn't it?

 

[UltimaGabe]

Just because a save can end the effect, there is no guarantee the target actually has any chance to make a save out of its turn. Most monsters don't.

If by "most" you mean "at least 50%", then you are incorrect. A base save has a 55% chance of succeeding, and unless the PCs have focused on making enemies take penalties to their saves, they will face far more enemies with a chance of making the save higher than 55% than lower than 55%.

Statistically speaking, most monsters DO make their first save.