Stacking same condition (save ends)

[CapnZapp]

CapnZapp: The two powers don't have different durations. They have the same duration, '(Save ends)' which is explicitly defined. You save against the condition 'immobilized' and you've satisfied the condition for both powers, that being, you saved against it, and they both end.

I'm aware this is what you arrive at if you read the rules without questioning the two relevant passages, yes.

My point is that when I investigated, I realized these rules weren't all that well written.

It is questionable if the one was meant to be read in the context of the other. It could just as easily be a case where more can be read into the words themselves than what was ever intended.

I fully sympathize with the folks that find the rules as written confusing as heck. In what cases, exactly, do you "combine" effects and when do you "combine" durations?

It is in this light I wanted to explore an alternative, an easier way out.

 

[Sunglare]

No, if he saves he's no longer taking damage. The ongoing 10 completely replaces the ongoing 5 (see page 278 of the PHB).

Aye i've read it.

The Same Type of Ongoing Damage:​

​

​

​

​

If effects deal
ongoing damage of the same type, or if the damage
has no type, only the higher number applies. Example:​

You’re taking ongoing 5 damage (no type) when a
power causes you to take ongoing 10 damage. You’re​

now taking ongoing 10 damage, not 15.

It doesn't actually say it overrides the exsisting damage. It just says you take the higher of the two damage and not to stack them. I think I'll stick to my original ruling and what cappnzapp reiterated.

If you have 5 different attackers attack the same target all with a power that has a immbolize efffect and a secondary effect tied to it but the secondary effect for each one is different (save ends) on all.
If the target saves on 3 effects but still have 2 left the target will still be immobolized.

Plus there is a purpose to over immobolizing a target, you really really don't want them to move anywhere and they will have to contribute extra resources to get unstuck.

 

[Piratecat]

For completeness, here's a link to a similar thread I started:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/252698-help-im-fire-being-eaten-rats.html

 

[Nebulous]

Now i'm confused again. Is there an official ruling on this?

 

[keterys]

There is an argument that, say, if an enemy mage hits someone with Freeze Bolt that Immobilizes (save ends) and then a deathlock hits that same person with Grave Bolt that immobilizes (save ends), it's a different power and thusly you must save against each.

This becomes particularly important if, say, you've got a +5 save bonus against necrotic effects and the mage's freeze bolt has a -2 penalty on the saves.

Now, if five deathlocks are throwing grave bolts at a single target, then only one applies. It's the same power, with _either_ the same duration or you can freely pick whichever one of the save ends ones lasts longer at that instant, the rest don't apply. Now further turns may alter the duration of that longest, but that's neither here nor there.

I would be interested in seeing if there is any rule that actually says to apply the same power multiple times for saves and duration, though.

 

[Zerakon]

For completeness, here's a link to a similar thread I started:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/252698-help-im-fire-being-eaten-rats.html

For even more completeness, here's a link to another similar thread that vhailor started 6 days earlier:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/252321-ongoing-damage-saves.html

 

[Oldtimer]

I must agree with CapnZapp here. Ruling that you only need to save once against two instances of the same condition opens up a huge can of worms.

Assume you are hit by two attacks. Attack A gives you ongoing 5 fire and immobilized (save ends both), attack B gives you ongoing 5 fire and dazed (save ends both). At the start of your turn you only take 5 fire damage, but at the end of your turn you (obviously) need to save twice. What happens if you save against the effect of attack A but not B? Are you still on fire? If not, are you still dazed? What if one of the attacks didn't have a rider effect? What if neither of them had a rider effect? So many questions, so few answers.

Much simpler to do as CapnZapp suggests.

 

[keterys]

Those are two different powers, so you'd have to save against each.

The question is about two identical powers... and for that, there aren't a lot of curveballs.

 

[urzafrank]

This Issue has been ruled on by WOTC. How it works is if you get hit by 2 monsters and they give you dazed (save ends) and you then make one save and if you succeed you are no longer dazed. Now if one monster gives you ongoing 5 fire and dazed (save end both) and another gives dazed (save ends) then you have to make 2 saves, one for each. If you saves vs the first one but not the 2nd you are still dazed. It was in a Dragon otherwise i would post a link. If i find it anywhere else i will post a link

 

[CapnZapp]

@Keterys: I probably should have been (even) clearer.

I'm not disputing what the PHB says or that WotC did itthat way because they thought they would make us a favor.

@Urzafranz: And so you don't need to find any links. There is no need - I believe you.

However, what I am arguing is this is in no way easier. In fact, I think it makes it hugely more complicated!

Not only does is it completely gamist, and a complete disconnect between out-of-game rules and in-game "reality", but I believe the actual rules themselves will become an impossible mess.

Examples:

1) If you're both hit by a Freeze Bolt that Immobilizes (save ends) and Grave Bolt that immobilizes (save ends), one will completely override the other, despite them being completely different powers; one Cold and one Necrotic. According to the rules, you simply save against the most recent one.

However, this example is illustrative: if, say, you've got a +5 save bonus against necrotic effects and the Freeze Bolt has a -2 penalty on saves. Then you want to be hit with Grave Bolt last, because it gives you a relative bonus of +7 for your save.

In fact, with a scenario such as this, if you have an ally that can produce a necrotic Immobilizes (save ends) effect, you might even want to ask him to blast you in the face as this will automagically "erase" that difficult Freeze Bolt for you, replacing it with the much easier version of the same condition!

2) Attack A gives you ongoing 5 fire and immobilized (save ends both), attack B gives you ongoing 5 fire and dazed (save ends both). At the start of your turn you only take 5 fire damage, but at the end of your turn you (obviously) need to save twice. What happens if you save against the effect of attack A but not B? Are you still on fire? If not, are you still dazed? What if one of the attacks didn't have a rider effect? What if neither of them had a rider effect?

In all cases but the last one, you'd keep taking the ongoing damage even after successfully saving against one effect. In the last one, however, because you've got an exact match on the game statistics (regardless of in-game causality) saving against one also removes the other.

And yes, how is this good for the game?

I completely understand how people get confusing with a rule such as this.

And this is what motivated to write my post.

What is the benefit of introducing a special exception when it
1) is in no way related to what's actually happening in the game?
2) doesn't reflect "common sense" and thus is hard to remember?
3) generally confuses the hell out of people?

What is the actual benefit of this rule?

Sure, if you face lots of identical monsters, you're somewhat protected against focus fire (but not if they simply try to blast you to smithereens) but is this really worth it?