Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Ongoing damage: questions
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 4805225" data-attributes="member: 12731"><p>Here's the result of the CapnZapp jury <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> </p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p></p><p>2. IMC, "save ends" stack, so your character needs to save three times. </p><p></p><p>He still only takes the ongoing damage once per round though.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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...:</p><p></p><p>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? </p><p></p><p>If the rules had any balls here, they would base the rule on <strong>the source</strong> (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).</p><p></p><p>As it is, the "one save against each instance" is both simple and logical, so that's the one I'm using. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>3. I agree with the posters saying "whatever is the coolest". </p><p></p><p>In other words, because the rules don't explicitly hose the player, I see no reason to rule it so. </p><p></p><p>The Cleric can therefore choose to push first, and apply damage second. </p><p></p><p>Again, IMC. Here the rules are simply <em>undefined</em>, and so neither interpretation would be <em>strictly wrong</em>.</p><p></p><p></p><p>4. "How does ongoing damage interact with Regeneration?"</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>In other words, apply both ongoing damage and regeneration at the same time for a net result of (5-2=)3 damage. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 4805225, member: 12731"] 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 [B]the source[/B] (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 [I]undefined[/I], and so neither interpretation would be [I]strictly wrong[/I]. 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... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Ongoing damage: questions
Top