Specifically, I was looking at using a bird companion with a ranger. The bird allows the rangers attacks to "add 1d4 persistent bleed damage as an enhancement."
Persistent damage says,
"While affected by persistent damage, at
the end of your turn you take the specified amount and
type of damage... You roll
the damage dice anew each time you take the persistent
damage."
And,
"You can be simultaneously affected by multiple
persistent damage conditions so long as they have different
damage types. If you would gain more than one persistent
damage condition with the same damage type, the higher
amount of damage overrides the lower amount."
So, this raises a few questions for me. Does an enemy take an amount of damage equal to the bleed effect when the strike occurs or ONLY at the end of their turn? If only at the end of their turn, how would I determine the damage if I hit the enemy three times? Would I roll 3d4 and use the highest value? Or only roll 1d4 since that's the highest (variable) value from any given attack? If only 1d4 what would happen if I then dealt 1d6 bleed damage somehow? Would I roll 1d4 and 1d6 and deal the higher damage? Is 1d6 "higher" than 1d4? What about 2d4 vs 1d8?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Persistent damage happens immediately when it is imposed, in addition to the end of turn.
As for the current rules as written, 1d6 would overwrite the 1d4 as it is a higher die value, and I wager 2d4 would overwrite 1d8 as having a higher minimum and average. I've already expressed my displeasure with this elsewhere; multiple sources of persistent damage of the same type should stack. Getting a second bleeding wound doesn't just cause the first wound to magically close up and stop bleeding, getting multiple fire dots can easily represent several different parts of you catching on fire or the Flames getting more intense.
|
Persistent Damage (PD) has turned out to be a bit more complicated and confusing than I hoped based on the previews, but I'm personally all aboard for new PD Rules, as long as they're clear and easy to understand... which the currently are not.
I'm hoping PD gets another pass of polish and tidying up because this is a design space that has suffered for a long time from always being specific to the Spell, Ability, Item, Hazard that creates it.
Cest'le'voi It is a playtest after all.
Persistent damage happens immediately when it is imposed, in addition to the end of turn.
As for the current rules as written, 1d6 would overwrite the 1d4 as it is a higher die value, and I wager 2d4 would overwrite 1d8 as having a higher minimum and average. I've already expressed my displeasure with this elsewhere; multiple sources of persistent damage of the same type should stack. Getting a second bleeding wound doesn't just cause the first wound to magically close up and stop bleeding, getting multiple fire dots can easily represent several different parts of you catching on fire or the Flames getting more intense.
Can you explain the reasoning behind those conclusions? They're the same as I'd logically reach too, but I fear that's part 1e bleeding into my thoughts and part attempting to apply sense. But I'm struggling to discern if it's what the rules actually say.
From what's been quoted; why do you think the target takes the persistent damage immediately? I do not believe that is stated anywhere under conditions.
Persistent damage happening immediately when inflicted can be inferred from several places.
- On page 323, "If an effect deals damage immediately and also deals persistent damage, you don't take the persistent damage if you negate the other damage. For example, an attack that deals slashing damage and persistent bleed damage wouldn't deal the persistent bleed damage if you blocked all of the slashing damage." This is basically just a reminder of the Damage and Enhancements section on page 294, which also applies to stuff like poison.
- There are various items and effects which would otherwise deal no damage when you attack with them. The acid flask deals 1d4 persistent acid damage and 1 (non-persistent) acid splash damage. If persistent didn't happen immediately, would mean the direct target of an acid flask somehow takes no damage while the people around them do immediately take damage!
The clear intent is that it happens right away. It could definitely be worded better.
For the override, that's in the condition on page 323: "If you would gain more than one persistent damage condition with the same damage type, the higher amount of damage overrides the lower amount."
That doesn't say that you roll the persistent damage immediately, it just says that if you don't do any damage, the persistent effect isn't applied at all.
how would I determine the damage if I hit the enemy three times? Would I roll 3d4 and use the highest value? Or only roll 1d4 since that's the highest (variable) value from any given attack? If only 1d4 what would happen if I then dealt 1d6 bleed damage somehow? Would I roll 1d4 and 1d6 and deal the higher damage? Is 1d6 "higher" than 1d4? What about 2d4 vs 1d8?
Persistent damage doesn't stack (unless it deals a different kind of damage). 1d4 bleed followed by 1d4 bleed means... 1d4 bleed (not 2d4) rolled at the end of the target's turn.
If you would gain more than one persistent
damage condition with the same damage type, the higher
amount of damage overrides the lower amount.
1 < 1d4 < 1d6 < 2d4 < 10
(where '<' means "is less than")
That doesn't say that you roll the persistent damage immediately, it just says that if you don't do any damage, the persistent effect isn't applied at all.
So you're saying an acid flask hurts everyone around the target but not the target? XD
I'm saying from all the games I've played I would expect to take damage right away. But I do not think it says this in the rules, in fact it says the opposite.
I'm saying from all the games I've played I would expect to take damage right away. But I do not think it says this in the rules, in fact it says the opposite.
Exactly! This is what I'm getting at.
That doesn't say that you roll the persistent damage immediately, it just says that if you don't do any damage, the persistent effect isn't applied at all.
how would I determine the damage if I hit the enemy three times? Would I roll 3d4 and use the highest value? Or only roll 1d4 since that's the highest (variable) value from any given attack? If only 1d4 what would happen if I then dealt 1d6 bleed damage somehow? Would I roll 1d4 and 1d6 and deal the higher damage? Is 1d6 "higher" than 1d4? What about 2d4 vs 1d8?Persistent damage doesn't stack (unless it deals a different kind of damage). 1d4 bleed followed by 1d4 bleed means... 1d4 bleed (not 2d4) rolled at the end of the target's turn.
If you would gain more than one persistent
damage condition with the same damage type, the higher
amount of damage overrides the lower amount.1 < 1d4 < 1d6 < 2d4 < 10
(where '<' means "is less than")
So there's no opportunity to roll a d4 and a d6 and see which one is higher? Why not and where does it say this? Where is this hierarchy presented? And what about 1d8 vs 2d4?
And it's not about stacking if it's applied immediately. Or if it is then it raises more questions. Would you just not roll the second d4 or only apply it if you rolled higher?
That doesn't say that you roll the persistent damage immediately, it just says that if you don't do any damage, the persistent effect isn't applied at all.So you're saying an acid flask hurts everyone around the target but not the target? XD
The base damage does. The on-going kicks in later.
If you dealt no base damage, there is no on-going.
Acid Flask is an anomaly because there's no base damage.
So there's no opportunity to roll a d4 and a d6 and see which one is higher? Why not and where does it say this? Where is this hierarchy presented? And what about 1d8 vs 2d4?
I quoted the relevant rules. The hierarchy I presented is based off the fact that obviously 1d6 is better than 1d4 (it can get a 5 or 6, the d4 can't). As for 1d8 vs. 2d4, the 2d4 is better: the 2d4 can't roll a 1.
And it's not about stacking if it's applied immediately. Or if it is then it raises more questions. Would you just not roll the second d4 or only apply it if you rolled higher?
Persistent damage is re-rolled each round:
While affected by persistent damage, at
the end of your turn you take the specified amount and
type of damage, after which you can attempt a DC 20
flat check to remove the persistent damage. You roll
the damage dice anew each time you take the persistent
damage.
Note the word "affected by" in the first sentence and "you take" in the last. Affected means that you have the status condition while take means that the status condition has triggered (per the rule from the first sentence: "at the end of your turn you take")
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually going to change my mind and side with the people saying persistent damage doesn't proc for the first time when applied, only at the end of the victim's turn. The section on splash damage is very badly written, but splash weapons do actually seem to do splash damage to the target, not just those adjacent to them. This would basically solve my issue with the acid flask, because it does mean the target is at least taking some damage at the moment of attack, not somehow avoiding damage while those around them are hurt.
This would be a lot clearer if they just stated that a splash weapon affects a 5 ft radius burst on hit. And if they explicitly state that persistent damage doesn't apply at the moment of the applying attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The section on splash damage is very badly written, but splash weapons do actually seem to do splash damage to the target, not just those adjacent to them. This would basically solve my issue with the acid flask, because it does mean the target is at least taking some damage at the moment of attack, not somehow avoiding damage while those around them are hurt.
I would agree with you except that I looked at the rules on splash. :\
I was going to say "the splash damage" except that no. :(
Splash When a character uses a thrown weapon with the splash
trait (such as an alchemical bomb or holy water), she doesn’t
add her Strength modifier to the damage roll. A splash weapon
can deal splash damage in addition to its normal damage. If
an attack with a splash weapon fails, succeeds, or critically
succeeds, all creatures within 5 feet of the target take the
indicated amount of splash damage. On a failure (but not a
critical failure), the target of the attack also takes the splash
damage. Splash damage is not multiplied on a critical hit.
A failed hit deals splash to the target. This is called out explicitly. If that sentence was missing then the "fail, success, crit-success" line would cover splash on the target. :(
Based on how Logan (who is one of the devs) ran Part 2 of Doomsday Dawn, persistent damage applied at the end of the characters turn. It did not apply immediately.
This was a source of confusion for us when we ran it and so I specifically watched for this. Anyone interested in seeing it can find it on Paizo's twitch channel.
I quoted the relevant rules. The hierarchy I presented is based off the fact that obviously 1d6 is better than 1d4 (it can get a 5 or 6, the d4 can't). As for 1d8 vs. 2d4, the 2d4 is better: the 2d4 can't roll a 1.
Except a d4 can roll better than a d6. And the higher amount of damage is what determines which happens, so 2d4 not being able to roll a 1 is irrelevant.
Except a d4 can roll better than a d6.
A d4 can roll better than 3d6, but I'd rather take 1d4 damage than 3d6 damage...
There are two choices here:
(1) Roll all the sources of same-type persistent damage separately, take the highest. So if two things give you 1d6 persistent damage, you'd roll two dice and use the highest number.
(2) Roll only the one with the highest average damage. On average 2d4 is higher than 1d8, so 2d4 would take precedence.
The rule is:
You can be simultaneously affected by multiple persistent damage conditions so long as they have different damage types. If you would gain more than one persistent damage condition with the same damage type, the higher amount of damage overrides the lower amount.
It appears that the decision is made when you gain a new persistent damage condition, not every round. This suggests that interpretation 2 is intended. Which is easier to run, except in unusual situations where it's not obvious which is the biggest amount (eg, is 7 per round better or worse than 2d6 per round?) In which case, I'd suggest letting the attacker decide.
Terrible example even as a joke. The acid flask does 1d4 damage to the target, 1 splash to everyone around the target (assuming it hits) and the target takes 1 persistent at the end of his turn. Persistent rules are dead clear on how they work.That doesn't say that you roll the persistent damage immediately, it just says that if you don't do any damage, the persistent effect isn't applied at all.So you're saying an acid flask hurts everyone around the target but not the target? XD
You appear to be completely wrong. For starters, it says 1d4 persistent, not 1 persistent.
Except a d4 can roll better than a d6.A d4 can roll better than 3d6, but I'd rather take 1d4 damage than 3d6 damage...
There are two choices here:
(1) Roll all the sources of same-type persistent damage separately, take the highest. So if two things give you 1d6 persistent damage, you'd roll two dice and use the highest number.(2) Roll only the one with the highest average damage. On average 2d4 is higher than 1d8, so 2d4 would take precedence.
The rule is:
You can be simultaneously affected by multiple persistent damage conditions so long as they have different damage types. If you would gain more than one persistent damage condition with the same damage type, the higher amount of damage overrides the lower amount.It appears that the decision is made when you gain a new persistent damage condition, not every round. This suggests that interpretation 2 is intended. Which is easier to run, except in unusual situations where it's not obvious which is the biggest amount (eg, is 7 per round better or worse than 2d6 per round?) In which case, I'd suggest letting the attacker decide.
Except you're pulling average out of nowhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. What other method of comparison between two hypothetical random amounts of damage would you propose?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like he really really wants to just roll every instance of persistent damage and take the best. While that's definitely not what it says, if it floats your boat, go for I guess. But it is a bunch of wasted time from unnecessary extra rolls so your players will hate it.
The point being, the more dice you roll, the more chances you have to roll maximum damage. Since the effects don't stack, making them overlap at least gives you SOME pay-off for inflicting the condition multiple times.
Also noet that in PF1, persistent effects happen at the start of YOUR turn. Presumably, your victim got to act between your turns and had a chance to deal with the condition. But changing it to happening at the end of the target's turn makes it a bit easier to handle when the target suffers from multiple effects from different players. Just deal with them when the target's turn comes up instead of every player's.
Also noet that in PF1, persistent effects happen at the start of YOUR turn. Presumably, your victim got to act between your turns and had a chance to deal with the condition.
1) They still can spend actions dealing with it before it triggers (because it's at the END of their turn)
2) If they don't, they get a free shot at it (but AFTER the damage)
It sounds like he really really wants to just roll every instance of persistent damage and take the best. While that's definitely not what it says, if it floats your boat, go for I guess. But it is a bunch of wasted time from unnecessary extra rolls so your players will hate it.
What I want is clarity in the rules. It's a playtest. That's the point. Why don't you quit making assumptions about me and actually talk about what the book says?
Yes. What other method of comparison between two hypothetical random amounts of damage would you propose?
I don't care what method is used. I want the method to be in the rulebook so it's balanced and uniform. That's the point of the rulebook.
Also noet that in PF1, persistent effects happen at the start of YOUR turn. Presumably, your victim got to act between your turns and had a chance to deal with the condition.1) They still can spend actions dealing with it before it triggers (because it's at the END of their turn)
2) If they don't, they get a free shot at it (but AFTER the damage)
Yes, this is what I said. The ONLY difference is that it is probably a bit neater to handle it on the enemy's turn instead of the players.
Persistent damage happening immediately when inflicted can be inferred from several places.
- On page 323, "If an effect deals damage immediately and also deals persistent damage, you don't take the persistent damage if you negate the other damage. For example, an attack that deals slashing damage and persistent bleed damage wouldn't deal the persistent bleed damage if you blocked all of the slashing damage." This is basically just a reminder of the Damage and Enhancements section on page 294, which also applies to stuff like poison.
- There are various items and effects which would otherwise deal no damage when you attack with them. The acid flask deals 1d4 persistent acid damage and 1 (non-persistent) acid splash damage. If persistent didn't happen immediately, would mean the direct target of an acid flask somehow takes no damage while the people around them do immediately take damage!
The clear intent is that it happens right away. It could definitely be worded better.
For the override, that's in the condition on page 323: "If you would gain more than one persistent damage condition with the same damage type, the higher amount of damage overrides the lower amount."
Pg 323, Persistent Damage states when it affects you...
My beef with persistent damage:
-It is easy to apply (typically spell vs. TAC no save)
-It lasts potentially indefinitely (Which i like in theory, but not with current flat check DC scheme)
-the Flat check of 20 at end of turn is brutal!!!
-only bleed has specific mechanics to be fixed (with First Aid Action, DC 15)... but is contradicted on Page 323, persistent damage section.
- It is unclear what action can be taken to allow player to immediately roll a DC 15 flat check against Fire, Acid, Electricity etc.
Here is how I might fix it for Persistent Fire, Acid, Electricity Damage...
Player can interact/manipulate 1 action to pour water on self/burning victim, Wash off Acid, or somehow disperse the electric charge (not sure flavor-wise... and there could be other methods DM fiat based on player creativity). No Check Required, and the plater affected by Persistent Damage can attempt a DC 15 Flat Check.
Say the check is failed. Player can spend another 1 action attempt, this time lowering the Flat DC to 12 (makes sense... more continuous patting, pouring, dousing, errr grounding of charge).
Say the 2nd check is failed... and the player still has a remaining action... they can attempt it a 3rd time, lowering Flat DC to 10...
Any further attempts that round to douse the persistent damage will remain at Flat DC 10... and IF the victim of persistent damage gets all the way to the end of his/her turn STILL "burning/melting/electric sliding" and fails the free flat check (now lowered to 10 from 20)... they take the persistent damage and the DC is again set to 20. (unlucky b$$trd).
My 2 cents. As currently written we don't have enough to go on.
- It is unclear what action can be taken to allow player to immediately roll a DC 15 flat check against Fire, Acid, Electricity etc.Here is how I might fix it for Persistent Fire, Acid, Electricity Damage...
Player can interact/manipulate 1 action to pour water on self/burning victim, Wash off Acid, or somehow disperse the electric charge...(not sure flavor-wise... and there could be other methods DM fiat based on player creativity).
It'll be good for a GM to know how the victim of a paladin's smite can rid themselves of persistent good damage. Douse themselves in unholy water?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-the Flat check of 20 at end of turn is brutal!!!
Do note that if you (or an ally) takes the "put the fire out" action the flat check is not only reduced to 15 forever, but you get an immediate roll with no downsides.
If you spend your entire turn rolling around on the ground you get 4 checks against DC 15.
That's a 34% chance to still be on fire when you take the damage and a 24% chance you're still on fire afterwards.
On your next turn if you do that again the probabilities drop to 8% and 5.7% respectively.
A third turn? 1.98% and 1.38%
As for what action you need to take to take the DC down to 15...as far as I'm concerned right now the rules are "spend an action and you do <<<something>>> and you get the benefits." <<<something>>> doesn't need to be defined at all, just that you spend an action dealing with the problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks Draco18s, will have to take your word on the %'s... math not my friend. I would think the percentage chance would not change going to infinity... isn't that the whole gamblers fallacy thingy? Won't each flat DC 15 check net a 30% chance of success?
As for what action you need to take to take the DC down to 15...as far as I'm concerned right now the rules are "spend an action and you do <<<something>>> and you get the benefits." <<<something>>> doesn't need to be defined at all, just that you spend an action dealing with the problem.
That's how I interpret it too, but no such action or activity exists in the rulebook (it is eluded to, but not specifically defined). Also, fuel to the fire, check out this sentence from Rulebook pg 323... can be interpreted in another way than how we both think it works... that Administer First Aid Action is to be used to put out fire/acid (and it also contradicts Administer First Aid's stop Bleed Mechanics as described in the skills chapter pg 152):
"You or an ally can spend actions to help you recover from persistent damage, such as casting healing spells or using Medicine to Administer First Aid against bleeding, dousing a flame, or washing off acid;" - Rulebook Pg 323
Grammer... ugh... I highlighted the trouble word that seems to suggest we need to use medicine for bleeding, dousing or washing...
This could be errata'd quite simply:
1) Interact Action - include language about dousing a burning buddy, washing off acid, finding a way to ground your electrified bud,
2) Add a new action / activity that fits this niche.
It'll be good for a GM to know how the victim of a paladin's smite can rid themselves of persistent good damage. Douse themselves in unholy water?
Exactly! How exactly should that work? Just feels like designers were rushed here... doesn't feel sharp/clean. I get it is playtest, but there are a number of places that are devoid of important design elements (How to combat train animals, mounts fatiguing riders in exploration mode, undefined scent distances, etc etc).
Anxious to see how these are errata'd.
In the case of Persistent Damage: If there is a mechanic to apply some effect in the game, there needs to be the mechanic to relieve it as well (or at least be clear about it).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks Draco18s, will have to take your word on the %'s... math not my friend. I would think the percentage chance would not change going to infinity... isn't that the whole gamblers fallacy thingy? Won't each flat DC 15 check net a 30% chance of success?
Correct. Each individual check is 30% chance of success, but you can still calculate the odds of still being on fire after a given amount of elapsed time.
Note that doesn't mean you can say "I've been on fire for two rounds already, there's only a 1% chance I'll still be on fire if I put myself out!" That's the fallacious part. The correct percentage in that statement is 34% as you being on fire right now is 100% guaranteed: all those past checks have already been rolled and came up duds.