Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="keterys" data-source="post: 4720898" data-attributes="member: 43019">Ahkay. Carry on <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=":)" />Don't follow that - 'And I surround you in a nimbus of darkness that deals 5 necrotic per round' 'I'm already nimbused from when you did that last round' 'Oh, right, carry on'Examples:These are different powers so you could easily argue that p278 indicates you save against both.Doesn't matter what order you get hit by them...And the rules definitely don't say that.How is it bad? The in-game causality of 'Two mages came up and fire shrouded me and set me on fire, then I rolled and the fire went out...' isn't less sensical than when one did it.It's a balance mechanism on ongoing damage. Personally, I think the easiest or best method would have been to make it by power name, so two mages Fire Shroud = 1 save, 1 mage Fire Shroud and 1 warlock Flames of Phlegethos = 2 save. I could be wrong, though, because then people would have to write down the names. So maybe the easiest method _is_ in fact what we already have.Except... that it is completely related to what's actually happening in game? Unless you want to argue 'Okay, well you're nimbused a second time' 'Oh, so I take 10 damage now?' 'No, still 5. But if you save against the first nimbus it goes away and the second starts to work' is somehow _less_ gamist and more sensical in game.Common sense is rarely common, or sense, when applied to a greater population. They definitely could have written the entire rules section more clearly, with clearcut examples. That's not necessarily a problem with the rule inherently so much as explanation of that rule.Balances attack stacking, encourages targeting multiple people with effects, and less careful individual tracking required. Big benefits.Totally.</blockquote>

Verification