Here's the result of the CapnZapp jury
1. IMC, yes. I find it cheesy that a creature can automagically be saved from death based on whether the last standing Orc all across the room happens to die or not die.
Actually, I believe the RAW says no (meaning as soon as the encounter's over, all ongoing damage, and death saves, disappear). At least that's how my player presented his case, before I overruled him (per the above justification).
2. IMC, "save ends" stack, so your character needs to save three times.
He still only takes the ongoing damage once per round though.
This isn't clearly written in the PHB (the rule is very sloppily written), but if I had to take a guess about the RAI (as opposed to RAW), it would be that once you save against one instance of a condition, you're free of all of them.
However, not only does this constitute a massive nerf to all monsters who like to gang up several identical members against the party, it creates highly illogical situations too...:
If you're hit by "dazed and ongoing damage 10 (save ends both)" twice, one save is enough. But if you're hit only once and then by "immobilized and ongoing damage 10 (save ends both) you suddenly need to save twice? And the same if you're hit by either as well as "ongoing damage 10 (save ends)"? WTF?
If the rules had any balls here, they would base the rule on
the source (ie the monster), not the specific combination of conditions. In other words, if the rule was that no matter how many Condition X you're affected by from one kind of monster, you only need to save once; but as soon as you're hit by Condition X from another kind of monster, you need to save against that separately, the rule would make sense again (because, presumably, even if two monsters did the exact same condition - such as "dazed and ongoing 10 acid damage" - they would create the condition in different ways).
As it is, the "one save against each instance" is both simple and logical, so that's the one I'm using.
3. I agree with the posters saying "whatever is the coolest".
In other words, because the rules don't explicitly hose the player, I see no reason to rule it so.
The Cleric can therefore choose to push first, and apply damage second.
Again, IMC. Here the rules are simply
undefined, and so neither interpretation would be
strictly wrong.
4. "How does ongoing damage interact with Regeneration?"
My ruling is that because the PHB doesn't specify a specific order of these start-of-turn events, they all happen at the same time.
In other words, apply both ongoing damage and regeneration at the same time for a net result of (5-2=)3 damage.
If you've survived until the beginning of your turn, you get the benefits of regeneration even if ongoing damage takes you below zero at that time.
Again, the rulebook simply leaves this undefined. So the generous interpretation can't be said to be wrong, and I see no reason not to be generous here...
