Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Marcus Smythe 05-25-07, 10:49 AM	Hypothetical Situation: Ellie, the Egoist, manifests share pain, targeting Fred the fighter. No worries, we know what this does. Then Ted, the Telepath, also targets Fred with a share pain. Thus E<->F<->T Such that if E gets hit for 20 damage, F takes 10, E takes ten, and (I assume) the package of 10 damage going to F from the E-F share pain gets, via share pain, turned into two packages of 5, one for F and one for T. (We assume no damage returns to E via his link to F as a product of sending damage to F.. because otherwise, things just get hairy... The arguement could be made that the packet of 5 that resolves against F as a product of the F-T share pain would be subject to the E-F share pain...) But... what if F gets hit for 20 damage? Do all 3 take 10 damage? Do we arbitrarily pick one share pain effect to enforce, or do we enforce both, just in order? Do you divide the damage into thirds, such that a 30 point hit to F would be split 3 ways, and resolve as 10 damage against each? And finally, what if (because they hate their GM), E and T shared pain with each other, and then with thier psi-crystals, such that... .....................F .................../..\ ................./......\ ................/.........\ Crystal----E-------T-----Crystal Damage against E would go to Crystal, F, and T. Damage to F would get shared with T, and damage to T would get shared with F. Will this bounce damage 'back down the line' to E, as a product of E's seperate secondary links to F and T? (I know damage coming from E to F wont bounce from F to E as a product of the E-F share pain.. but damage from E to T, and thence from T to F, doesnt implicate the E-F share pain, so should come back to E, fractionally, due to it)... Thoughts? What potential implications, given vigor, and potentially given some form of DR against empathic damage?
Rageheart 05-25-07, 12:33 PM	:eek: I had never thought of linking Share pain in a series.
Tsuul 05-25-07, 01:51 PM	Stacking similar effects rule may kick in and just overwrite one of the effects on F. Dunno.
munin 05-25-07, 02:05 PM	Share Pain ... You take half damage from all attacks that deal hit point damage to you, and the subject takes the remainder. The damage transferred to F isn't an "attack", so it doesn't get transferred again. Even damage transferred by forced shared pain isn't an "attack", just an effect of an ongoing manifestation (though the initial manifestation would be considered an attack for the purposes of invisibility, etc.)
Marcus Smythe 05-25-07, 02:24 PM	Munin.. that definitely simplifies the bouncing-damage problem, my thanks for pointing out the exat language (posting from work, forever dangerous!) However, as we dont have identical effects overwriting one another, Im still not sure what happens when F gets hit...
Racinante 05-25-07, 02:31 PM	Hypothetical Situation: Ellie, the Egoist, manifests share pain, targeting Fred the fighter. No worries, we know what this does. Then Ted, the Telepath, also targets Fred with a share pain. Thus E<->F<->T Such that if E gets hit for 20 damage, F takes 10, E takes ten, and (I assume) the package of 10 damage going to F from the E-F share pain gets, via share pain, turned into two packages of 5, one for F and one for T. As munin pointed out, E takes 10 and F takes 10. The F-T link does not happen since no damage is dealt to F. But... what if F gets hit for 20 damage? F takes 10 and E takes 10 from the share pain manifest by E. F takes 10 and T takes 10 from the share pain manifest by T. Final results, F takes 20, E takes 10, and T takes 10. And finally, what if (because they hate their GM), E and T shared pain with each other, and then with their psi-crystals, such that... .....................F .................../..\ ................./......\ ................/.........\ Crystal----E-------T-----Crystal Damage against E would go to Crystal, F, and T. Damage to F would get shared with T, and damage to T would get shared with F. Will this bounce damage 'back down the line' to E, as a product of E's seperate secondary links to F and T? (I know damage coming from E to F wont bounce from F to E as a product of the E-F share pain.. but damage from E to T, and thence from T to F, doesnt implicate the E-F share pain, so should come back to E, fractionally, due to it)... Thoughts? What potential implications, given vigor, and potentially given some form of DR against empathic damage? Damage dealt to EC is shared 50/50 by E and EC. Sames is true of T and TC. Damage dealt to E results in E taking all the damage (half from share pain with EC and half from the share pain with F) and EC and F taking half. T is similar to E, and damage to F as explained above does not change.
munin 05-25-07, 02:39 PM	This power creates a psychometabolic connection between you and a willing subject so that some of your wounds are transferred to the subject. You take half damage from all attacks that deal hit point damage to you, and the subject takes the remainder. The amount of damage not taken by you is taken by the subject. share pain is strictly one-way. If Ellie and Ted both manifest share pain with Fred as the target, then any damage taken by Ellie or Ted is shared with Fred, but damage taken by Fred is not shared with anyone else. E -> F <- T At work: The Hypertext d20 SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/) Edit: If Ellie manifests SP with Fred as the target, then manifests SP with her psicrystal as the target? Not sure. I think you would transfer half to one subject, transfer a quarter to the second subject, then take quarter damage (even with multiple manifestations it's not overpowered if the subjects are willing, or failed their save for forced SP). When the rules don't specify the order that things happen, the player gets to decide. I think as a DM I would keep things simple and just houserule that only the most recently manifested SP would be in effect.
Racinante 05-25-07, 02:53 PM	share pain is strictly one-way. If Ellie and Ted both manifest share pain with Fred as the target, then any damage taken by Ellie or Ted is shared with Fred, but damage taken by Fred is not shared with anyone else. E -> F <- T At work: The Hypertext d20 SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/) Edit: If Ellie manifests SP with Fred as the target, then manifests SP with her psicrystal as the target? Not sure. I think as a DM I would keep things simple and rule that only the most recently manifested SP would be in effect. Gah, good catch. For the previous scenario to play out then, you would need to manifest the power twice for each set of targets since You can manifest this power on two willing subjects, one of which you designate to share its damage with the other.
Racinante 05-25-07, 02:59 PM	If Ellie manifests SP with Fred as the target, then manifests SP with her psicrystal as the target? Not sure. I think you would transfer half to one subject, transfer a quarter to the second subject, then take quarter damage (even with multiple manifestations it's not overpowered if the subjects are willing, or failed their save for forced SP). When the rules don't specify the order that things happen, the player gets to decide. I think as a DM I would keep things simple and just houserule that only the most recently manifested SP would be in effect. I agree that a ruling would have to be made as the stacking rules for spells/powers doesn't clearly cover this scenario. If the two are ruled to stack, then I would go as I described above. If the two do not, then only the last manifest should have an effect.
Marcus Smythe 05-25-07, 03:09 PM	Good catch on the one-way street.. I've been using the power forever and overlooking that (mainly, I suppose, because I've been sharing MY pains with the rock in my pocket...) I think for any game I run, Im going to go with an interpretation that any given 'sharer' can only have a single 'sharee', though an individual could be the sharee for multiple sharers. Its certainly preferable to a result where one person, beinging the sharer for two share pains, actually takes full damage. However rules-logical an outcome that is, its just too counterintuitive.