Saves question - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Saves question

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
northernwolvie
Apr 24, 2009 20:02:34 I recently played a LFR game where the dm kept stacking the save ends(five ongoing poison). He never stacked the damage, but stacked the save ends from the same source over and over eveytime he hit. At one point some of us had 5 saves of poison at the same time. Is this allowed? The creature would attack with its aura at the beginning of turn and then attack during its turn. If you failed your saves. Then it would start all over next turn.
#2
WolfStar76
Apr 25, 2009 7:06:00
I recently played a LFR game where the dm kept stacking the save ends(five ongoing poison). He never stacked the damage, but stacked the save ends from the same source over and over eveytime he hit. At one point some of us had 5 saves of poison at the same time. Is this allowed? The creature would attack with its aura at the beginning of turn and then attack during its turn. If you failed your saves. Then it would start all over next turn.

Ongoing damage of a given type like "Ongoing Poison: 5" overwrite - with the biggest one in the stack "winning".

So no, your DM should have required only one save vs Ongoing Poison to remove the condition.

Of course, if the NPC has a decent to-hit he may well just keep re-poisoning targets every round.

Now, Ongion Poison: 5 and say, Ongoing Fire: 5 would be two separate saves.
#3
northernwolvie
May 02, 2009 21:40:17 Well we played with the same DM again and he did the same thing again. He made one player so mad they swore never to play with him again. He is a good Dm other than this minor problem. He said without a official ruling he will continue to stack the saves, even though the damage is not being stacked. So I could have 5 (ongoing 5 poison) saves and 3 dazed saves and have to make 8 saves at the end of the turn ( I only take 5 poison at start of turn). Is there any way to solve this problem? I thought the game was suppose to be fun for the players.
#4
Keith53
May 02, 2009 22:36:41 Because there is not an explicit rule statement, it may be hard to convince your DM. I was uncertain at first, until I thought through the concept.

Consider it two ways:

One: Concept of what the rules simulate: You are on fire. If someone puts your fire out, then it does not matter if you were previously in a fire source for 5 seconds or 10 seconds, the fire is out. One saving throw. Keep the system simple.

Two: Compare the rules on page 278, PHB, between different types of ongoing damage, and the same type of ongoing damage. For the case with different types of damage, you take damage from each effect, and the rules explicitly say "You make a separate saving throw against each damage type."
Under the same type of ongoing damage paragraph, there is no statement regarding more than one saving throw. So by comparison, the rule does not exist. The designers could have added a statement that a saving throw for each occurrance was needed, but they did not.

Otherwise, suggest the DM consult WotC Customer Service, and decline to play with him until he does.

Keith
#5
Matt_James
May 05, 2009 13:14:30 You need to pull your DM aside and remind him that this is a game and despite his interpretation of the rules, he is making the game unconfortable and unfun for others.
#6
bgibbons
May 05, 2009 15:15:52
He said without a official ruling he will continue to stack the saves, even though the damage is not being stacked. So I could have 5 (ongoing 5 poison) saves and 3 dazed saves and have to make 8 saves at the end of the turn ( I only take 5 poison at start of turn).

The rules say that if you're under multiple effects dealing damage of the same type, you only take damage equal to the highest number one. It doesn't quite say that you're not under all of the effects, merely that you don't take damage.

I can see the wiggle room there. In fact, the more I look at it, the more I'm not sure he's wrong, though I don't interpret the rules that way.

The statement "If effects deal ongoing damage of the same type..." intrinsically assumes that you have multiple effects on you at the point when you're considering whether they deal damage. If the designers wanted to say that a second redundant effect is never applied to the character, it would seem simpler to just say that. Still, this may just be imprecise wording.

For support for your position, you may want to e-mail WOTC Customer Service, if your DM considers that either authoritative or persuasive. It appears that they have previously ruled in your favor.
#7
SYB
May 05, 2009 20:24:05 There is another confusing factor. There are a number of monsters that apply effects like: immobilized and 5 ongoing fire damage (save ends both).

This makes things confusing when a PC is affected by both "immobilized and 5 ongoing fire damage (save ends both)" and "slowed and 5 ongoing fire damage (save ends both)".

-SYB
#8
Uthrac
May 08, 2009 13:03:14
This makes things confusing when a PC is affected by both "immobilized and 5 ongoing fire damage (save ends both)" and "slowed and 5 ongoing fire damage (save ends both)".

We generally play that effects from the same power source don't stack.

So, in our community, each of the above effects would require a separate save.

In the poison example from the OP, you could be affected by both the aura and attack poison effects (requiring separate saves), but additional "poisoning" by an effect you were already under would have no additional effect.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 northernwolvie Apr 24, 2009 20:02:34	I recently played a LFR game where the dm kept stacking the save ends(five ongoing poison). He never stacked the damage, but stacked the save ends from the same source over and over eveytime he hit. At one point some of us had 5 saves of poison at the same time. Is this allowed? The creature would attack with its aura at the beginning of turn and then attack during its turn. If you failed your saves. Then it would start all over next turn.
#2 WolfStar76 Apr 25, 2009 7:06:00	I recently played a LFR game where the dm kept stacking the save ends(five ongoing poison). He never stacked the damage, but stacked the save ends from the same source over and over eveytime he hit. At one point some of us had 5 saves of poison at the same time. Is this allowed? The creature would attack with its aura at the beginning of turn and then attack during its turn. If you failed your saves. Then it would start all over next turn. Ongoing damage of a given type like "Ongoing Poison: 5" overwrite - with the biggest one in the stack "winning". So no, your DM should have required only one save vs Ongoing Poison to remove the condition. Of course, if the NPC has a decent to-hit he may well just keep re-poisoning targets every round. Now, Ongion Poison: 5 and say, Ongoing Fire: 5 would be two separate saves.
#3 northernwolvie May 02, 2009 21:40:17	Well we played with the same DM again and he did the same thing again. He made one player so mad they swore never to play with him again. He is a good Dm other than this minor problem. He said without a official ruling he will continue to stack the saves, even though the damage is not being stacked. So I could have 5 (ongoing 5 poison) saves and 3 dazed saves and have to make 8 saves at the end of the turn ( I only take 5 poison at start of turn). Is there any way to solve this problem? I thought the game was suppose to be fun for the players.
#4 Keith53 May 02, 2009 22:36:41	Because there is not an explicit rule statement, it may be hard to convince your DM. I was uncertain at first, until I thought through the concept. Consider it two ways: One: Concept of what the rules simulate: You are on fire. If someone puts your fire out, then it does not matter if you were previously in a fire source for 5 seconds or 10 seconds, the fire is out. One saving throw. Keep the system simple. Two: Compare the rules on page 278, PHB, between different types of ongoing damage, and the same type of ongoing damage. For the case with different types of damage, you take damage from each effect, and the rules explicitly say "You make a separate saving throw against each damage type." Under the same type of ongoing damage paragraph, there is no statement regarding more than one saving throw. So by comparison, the rule does not exist. The designers could have added a statement that a saving throw for each occurrance was needed, but they did not. Otherwise, suggest the DM consult WotC Customer Service, and decline to play with him until he does. Keith
#5 Matt_James May 05, 2009 13:14:30	You need to pull your DM aside and remind him that this is a game and despite his interpretation of the rules, he is making the game unconfortable and unfun for others.
#6 bgibbons May 05, 2009 15:15:52	He said without a official ruling he will continue to stack the saves, even though the damage is not being stacked. So I could have 5 (ongoing 5 poison) saves and 3 dazed saves and have to make 8 saves at the end of the turn ( I only take 5 poison at start of turn). The rules say that if you're under multiple effects dealing damage of the same type, you only take damage equal to the highest number one. It doesn't quite say that you're not under all of the effects, merely that you don't take damage. I can see the wiggle room there. In fact, the more I look at it, the more I'm not sure he's wrong, though I don't interpret the rules that way. The statement "If effects deal ongoing damage of the same type..." intrinsically assumes that you have multiple effects on you at the point when you're considering whether they deal damage. If the designers wanted to say that a second redundant effect is never applied to the character, it would seem simpler to just say that. Still, this may just be imprecise wording. For support for your position, you may want to e-mail WOTC Customer Service, if your DM considers that either authoritative or persuasive. It appears that they have previously ruled in your favor.
#7 SYB May 05, 2009 20:24:05	There is another confusing factor. There are a number of monsters that apply effects like: immobilized and 5 ongoing fire damage (save ends both). This makes things confusing when a PC is affected by both "immobilized and 5 ongoing fire damage (save ends both)" and "slowed and 5 ongoing fire damage (save ends both)". -SYB
#8 Uthrac May 08, 2009 13:03:14	This makes things confusing when a PC is affected by both "immobilized and 5 ongoing fire damage (save ends both)" and "slowed and 5 ongoing fire damage (save ends both)". We generally play that effects from the same power source don't stack. So, in our community, each of the above effects would require a separate save. In the poison example from the OP, you could be affected by both the aura and attack poison effects (requiring separate saves), but additional "poisoning" by an effect you were already under would have no additional effect.