Persistent Damage - Dice vs Flat Number?


Rules Discussion


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

So my PCs have been impressed with persistent damage whenever it is dealt to them after running them through Fall of Plaguestone. We're converting a PF1 Adventure Path to PF2 and they're making 8th level characters to get a feel for some mid-level play before making their final 12th level characters. My players were looking to make use of persistent damage, and a question came up that I couldn't find an answer to no matter how I trawled the forums. I'm hoping I'm just not seeing where this has been addressed and there's already a solid answer. If that's the case, please provide a link. If there's been no solid answer from Paizo, I'd like to hear how others work it and/or compare the solution I've thought of. Anyway, here's the question.

If a creature takes 2d4 persistent fire damage, the rules say you'll reroll that amount each time they take damage (averaging 5). What if a creature takes rolled persistent damage, but then also proceeds to take a flat value? Say another person then inflicted 4 persistent fire damage. Does the creature treat these as two separate conditions since they're the same damage type but are different potential values? Like rolling a save versus the 2d4 and then another save vs the 4 and taking each as individual damage values? Or are you supposed to treat the average on dice values as being the higher amount?

Has there been any official word on this? My inclination would be to treat the value of a rolled persistent damage effect as the average result for the purposes of determining whether new incoming damage overrides it, but I want to make sure nothing else has been officially clarified.


I'm not the most active person here, but I can't remember ever coming across this particular question.

For what it's worth, here's my take:

1. The target would only take one persistent damage once, either the flat value or the rolled dice. It wouldn't take both since the rules clearly state youcan't take the same type of persistent damage twice at the same time.

2. As for how to handle the damage, I'd probably go with the higher number, using the average roll for comparison if necessary. Should the players happen to build characters that will often run into this combination of effects and want to use them, one could probably roll the 2d4, but treat a rolled 2 or 3 as a 4, so the 4 persistent damage at least do SOMEthing. This is purely houseruling, as far as I'm aware and I'd still treat it as only one burning condition for flat checks, resistance, weakness and the like.


The only official rules on having multiple sources of persistent damage are

CRB p621 sidebar wrote:

Multiple Persistent Damage Conditions

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. The damage you take from persistent damage occurs all at once, so if something triggers when you take damage, it triggers only once; for example, if you’re dying with several types of persistent damage, the persistent damage increases your dying condition only once.

As you have noted, this leaves ambiguous what to do with two sources of the same type but different die sizes (flat damage = d1). I raised this issue during the playtest but perhaps not loudly enough. :-(

Malkyn wrote:
My inclination would be to treat the value of a rolled persistent damage effect as the average result for the purposes of determining whether new incoming damage overrides it,

My inclination is largely the same as yours, except that I'm sure that won't be the eventual official answer, because Paizo doesn't want to ask non-mathy people to deal with die averages. So if you want a good answer, I'd go with comparing averages, and if you want an answer that might hold up under errata, I'd go with comparing max values.


This goes back to the playtest rules and it was never clarified. The argument I used then was that certain values are strictly better (1d4 > 1, 1d6 > 1d4) but when ambiguous go based on the average (2d4 > 4).


Malkyn wrote:

So my PCs have been impressed with persistent damage whenever it is dealt to them after running them through Fall of Plaguestone. We're converting a PF1 Adventure Path to PF2 and they're making 8th level characters to get a feel for some mid-level play before making their final 12th level characters. My players were looking to make use of persistent damage, and a question came up that I couldn't find an answer to no matter how I trawled the forums. I'm hoping I'm just not seeing where this has been addressed and there's already a solid answer. If that's the case, please provide a link. If there's been no solid answer from Paizo, I'd like to hear how others work it and/or compare the solution I've thought of. Anyway, here's the question.

If a creature takes 2d4 persistent fire damage, the rules say you'll reroll that amount each time they take damage (averaging 5). What if a creature takes rolled persistent damage, but then also proceeds to take a flat value? Say another person then inflicted 4 persistent fire damage. Does the creature treat these as two separate conditions since they're the same damage type but are different potential values? Like rolling a save versus the 2d4 and then another save vs the 4 and taking each as individual damage values? Or are you supposed to treat the average on dice values as being the higher amount?

Has there been any official word on this? My inclination would be to treat the value of a rolled persistent damage effect as the average result for the purposes of determining whether new incoming damage overrides it, but I want to make sure nothing else has been officially clarified.

Nothing official that I can tell. It's definitely a GM call, and comparing flat damage versus rolled damage as taking the average result is a fair ruling in my book. Another suggestion having been made is the "roll but still take the minimum flat damage" rule. This doesn't seem bad on paper, but having to track two separate sources of persistent damage in terms of flat checks and stuff is a little tedious on the GM side, especially if you got a big combat going with many other NPCs on the board.

All I can say is decide what you want to do, think through your decision, and let the players know what you're going to rule.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd roll the 2d4 every turn and the target would take a minimum of 4 so if you roll 3 on the 2d4 he'd take 4. if you rolled 7 on the 2d4 he'd take 7.


I ask the players and let them decide with the one/two who applied it counting for more.

As a GM I evaluate based on the average.


Eric Clingenpeel wrote:
I'd roll the 2d4 every turn and the target would take a minimum of 4 so if you roll 3 on the 2d4 he'd take 4. if you rolled 7 on the 2d4 he'd take 7.

Maintaining both sources of persistent damage directly contradicts the rule

CRB wrote:
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 would also make persistent damage much stronger.

Liberty's Edge

Wait... I'm a bit confused as to how this is ambiguous at all...

If there are multiple of the same type ongoing you check to see how much each source will deal on a given turn and then apply the highest number ammount of all same-type persistent damage sources.

In this case you check the 4 which doesn't change and then roll the 2d4, if you roll a 5 or greater on the dice they take that much, if you roll a 4 or less the creature takes 4 points of damage. When it says the higher ammount its talking about the final result... there isn't any precedent as far as I've seen to try and count any kind of "valuation" of the damage based on the dice rolled, it only cares about the final result.

EX: Baddie-Bro is on fire, like REALLY on fire, they have 4 sources of persistent fire damage
1) 1d6 persistent fire
2) 1d8 persistent fire
3) 2d4 persistent fire
4) 4 static persistent fire
-------Their Turn-------
Roll persistent fire damage sources 1-3, check results

If ANY of these roll higher than 4 you take the higest of these numbers - persistent damage is resolved.
Sample Rolls
1d6 = 3 (IGNORED)
1d8 = 5 (IGNORED)
2d4 = 8 (APPLIED)
4 static = 4 (IGNORED)
Total = 8 persistent fire damage


"If you would gain more than one persistent damage condition" means that the "higher" amount overrides the "lower" amount in the question of which you get persistently. You only have one amount of PD to check each round (of a given type).

Liberty's Edge

Hmmm.... ok well in light of the gain wording does throw a monkey wrench into this because you never resolve the persistent damage until WELL after you gain the condition that applies the damage...

Sounds like an inconsistency in timing that wasn't properly identified because you cannot really determine which of the sources would apply higher damage until after you need to resolve the damage is actually rolled.

Interesting indeed...


Themetricsystem wrote:
Sounds like an inconsistency in timing that wasn't properly identified

Except it was. There were several threads on it during the playtest.


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

"If you would gain more than one persistent damage condition" means that the "higher" amount overrides the "lower" amount in the question of which you get persistently. You only have one amount of PD to check each round (of a given type).

It almost seems when they wrote the rule they never intended for persistent damage to be based off a die roll, and instead for it to always be a flat value.

Alternatively, does it actually say in the rules somewhere that you re-roll the value of persistent damage every round? The rule you quoted would make more sense and apply more consistently if you only rolled the persistent damage value once.

EDIT: wow, I need more coffee this morning. Ignore part 2 up there, it's right under Persistent Damage (https://2e.aonprd.com/Conditions.aspx?ID=29)
"rolling any damage dice anew each time"

So we're back to vagueness in the rule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you have both 2d4 persistent fire and 3 persistent fire, I'd just run it as 2d4 (min 3) persistent fire. The case comes up so infrequently, it's fine for the GM to figure out what works for the situation.


GM OfAnything wrote:
If you have both 2d4 persistent fire and 3 persistent fire, I'd just run it as 2d4 (min 3) persistent fire. The case comes up so infrequently, it's fine for the GM to figure out what works for the situation.

I'm curious why you would go with "2d4 (min 3)" instead of either "2d4" or "3". The rules make clear that one of the latter two must be the actual answer, they just don't tell us which. I might roll a die to choose between them or I might go with the one with the higher max or higher average, but I'd never say "I don't know which so you get something worse than either."

It's only 1 hp/rd in your example, of course, but it could just as easily be 2d12 vs 12.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think you should just go with the one that's higher on average. 2d4 average is 5, so anything less is overwritten, anything more stays.


Picking whichever value happens to be higher, e.g., 2d4 (min 3), leads to a significant advantage over either value independently.

2d4 has an Expected Value of 5.0
2d4 (min 3) has an EV of 5.1
2d4 (min 4) has an EV of 5.3
2d4 (min 5) has an EV of 5.6

For reference, 1d4+1d6 has an EV of 6.0, so 2d4 (min 5) is adding more than half a damage die to 2d4.

I would probably just let the character who applies the second damage choose - they can either override the previous persistent damage or they can forego their persistent damage.

Note that it's sometimes unclear whether it's mathematically better to roll at a higher EV or take a fixed value below the EV (much like whether it's mathematically better to use Assurance to take 10 or roll 1d20 even if 1d20 does better on average). For example, if a monster has resist fire 5, 1d6 is better than 5. Other factors will include how close a monster is to death (if it has 3 HP left, 3 is better than 2d4), etc. It's easier to just let the characters decide.


Malkyn wrote:

If a creature takes 2d4 persistent fire damage, the rules say you'll reroll that amount each time they take damage (averaging 5). What if a creature takes rolled persistent damage, but then also proceeds to take a flat value? Say another person then inflicted 4 persistent fire damage. Does the creature treat these as two separate conditions since they're the same damage type but are different potential values? Like rolling a save versus the 2d4 and then another save vs the 4 and taking each as individual damage values? Or are you supposed to treat the average on dice values as being the higher amount?

Has there been any official word on this? My inclination would be to treat the value of a rolled persistent damage effect as the average result for the purposes of determining whether new incoming damage overrides it, but I want to make sure nothing else has been officially clarified.

A practical example i can think of for your first example would be and Alchemist using Acid Splash + Sticky Bomb. Sticky Bomb states that you combine the two in this instance which should make it look something along the lines of Xd4 + Y-splash.

For the second example; someone being Crit by a Flaming Rune while they already have Persistent Fire from an Alch Fire. I think this is open to interpretation by each DM. You could use the average damage, but that could also lead to low rolling and prove to be the weaker outcome. Personally i might wait till the damage is rolled to determine which one is more powerful and apply it then.

The part about ’Gain’ in the description, I read it as, it’s only ever a single condition; regardless of ruling. This would mean that however you want to settle the result of the persistent damage, it will only ever take one Flat Check to remove that specific condition.

Liberty's Edge

I agree with the minimum flat damage, as I believe the idea is that they tried explaining that persistent damage of the same type does not stack. Not that you discounted a source of persistent damage based on average values. But the wording ended up real strange.


The Raven Black wrote:
I agree with the minimum flat damage, as I believe the idea is that they tried explaining that persistent damage of the same type does not stack. Not that you discounted a source of persistent damage based on average values. But the wording ended up real strange.

So then how do you handle 2d4 persistent fire and 1d4+2 persistent fire? Does that become 2d4 minimum 3? Minimum whatever the 1d4+2 rolls? Just 2d4? 2d4+2? The better of [2d4] and [1d4+2]?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The last one. Compare the results and use the highest.


The Raven Black wrote:
The last one. Compare the results and use the highest.

But that directly contradicts the rules as written that says you only GAIN one of the two conditions. You can't have both at the same time.

CRB wrote:
If you would gain more than one persistent damage condition with the same damage type, the higher amount of damage overrides the lower amount.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
The last one. Compare the results and use the highest.

If two distinct sources both inflicted 1d6 persistent bleed damage, would you roll 2d6 and take the best result too?

Liberty's Edge

Draco18s wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
The last one. Compare the results and use the highest.

But that directly contradicts the rules as written that says you only GAIN one of the two conditions. You can't have both at the same time.

CRB wrote:
If you would gain more than one persistent damage condition with the same damage type, the higher amount of damage overrides the lower amount.

Your quote does not say that you only ever have one persistent damage condition with the same damage type. Just that you always use the higher amount of damage if you gain more than one of those.

EDIT : OK. Now I see it. It is the sentence just before the one you quoted.

Way I read it now, you check the value of the persistent damage conditions when you gain the new one. Based on the results at that time (which include rolling any necessary dice for damage), you then get rid of the condition that got the lower result.

So, if you get 4 persistent fire damage and 1d4+2 persistent fire damage, you roll the 1d4+2 and compare the result to 4. Higher stays, lower gets away.

But what happens when you get an equal result ? The rule says nothing about this and thus seems intended to always compare flat numbers of persistent damage.

Personally, in case of a tie, I would do rerolls until one condition's damage is higher than the other.


Dice persistent damage are in general way higher than flat persistent damage.


The Raven Black wrote:
So, if you get 4 persistent fire damage and 1d4+2 persistent fire damage, you roll the 1d4+2 and compare the result to 4. Higher stays, lower gets away.

Except that that's not how that works.

Heck, which is "more" 3d6 or 4?

You roll the 3d6 to find out...:
[1, 1, 1]

Obviously 4 is bigger. Duh.
9.9

Spoiler:
No, this makes no sense. The rules don't say you roll the damage at the time you gain the condition, you only roll it at the end of each turn when you would take the damage.

Liberty's Edge

Draco18s wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
So, if you get 4 persistent fire damage and 1d4+2 persistent fire damage, you roll the 1d4+2 and compare the result to 4. Higher stays, lower gets away.

Except that that's not how that works.

Heck, which is "more" 3d6 or 4?

** spoiler omitted **
[/spoiler]

Which one do you chose if there is a tie?

Seeing how they are silent on this, the rules were IMO written with flat values in mind, and did not consider variable values.

So, it is terra incognita and to be adjudicated by each GM as they feel best.


Wow. I worked so hard on that sarcasm and you missed it.


Which persistent damage condition stays and which goes is to be adjudicated by each GM. The fact that one stays and one goes is not up for adjudication, being firmly in RAW, which is why all methods like "roll both at each end of turn and do the max" are wrong.

The OP was asking for a good and/or official method of adjudication. As I said way back, highest average damage is a good method, but highest maximum damage is much more likely to be adopted by Paizo (if it ever does adopt a criterion). Highest minimum damage also works but is even more certain not to be adopted by Paizo (except as a tie-breaker), because the phrase "highest minimum" has been known to confuse some non-mathy people.


plus highest minimum would result in silly things like "2" persistent damage being picked over 1d20 persistent damage.

I agree that "average" is the most logical one, with "higher maximum" the most probable one to be adopted officially (simplyfing required math)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I suspect the intent is that you roll all, and apply the highest.

The current wording is unclear, and is likely an error.


Yes, because Paizo's intent is definitely to maximize the amount of bookkeeping players and GMs must do to implement the mechanics. That's one of the guiding principles of PF2!

Also, the current wording is not unclear, it is merely incomplete. Incompleteness is not sufficient cause to throw out the part that is there and rewire everything based on a guess as to what Paizo may "really" have intended.


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

Yes, because Paizo's intent is definitely to maximize the amount of bookkeeping players and GMs must do to implement the mechanics. That's one of the guiding principles of PF2!

Also, the current wording is not unclear, it is merely incomplete. Incompleteness is not sufficient cause to throw out the part that is there and rewire everything based on a guess as to what Paizo may "really" have intended.

I dunno, if you wanted to go the "interpret it like you're a computer" route, then the rule doesn't seem to have too much wiggle. You could practically write it out as code.

-subject has 4 persistent acid damage
-subject is hit by an acid bomb outside of it's turn doing 2d6 persistent damage
-at the end of subject's next turn, roll 2d6
-if that number is greater than 4, then the 2d6 persistent condition replaces the 4 persistent condition.
-if the number is less than or equal to 4, the 4 persistent condition remains
-apply the damage from the persistent damage condition
-roll flat check to see if the persistent damage condition falls off
-if the condition remains, the damage would be rolled again at the end of the subject's next turn.

The 2nd case (aka the "else") would suck if you were the source of the 2d6 damage, because basically your attack did nothing, but theoretically the die based value should replace the static in this example more often than not. Without doing the math I think I'd prefer it if the "greater than" was replaced by "greater than or equal to" and "less than or equal to" replace by "less than". Would also suck if there was a source of 3 persistent that got applied and the next 2d6 roll was a 2, but that's the danger of using variable persistent damage I guess.

There is a problem with my example, which is when do conditions technically apply? I think as written they apply immediately, which means you can't actually do the above example and we're back to being either unclear or incomplete depending on how you interpret it, since you don't know which is higher until the end of the subject's turn since you have to wait to roll for it.


This has come up at my table (persistent damage has occurred frequently, killing two of one of my player's characters AND they have a hard time rolling 15 or higher to stop persistentdamage) so they are all about the Wounding rune being on melee weapons. The Wounding rune normally does 1d6 on a hit and 1d12 on a crit. I just ruled that the d12 is rolled instead of the d6 because it's the same type of damage and has the higher potential damage.


Aricks wrote:

-at the end of subject's next turn, roll 2d6

-if that number is greater than 4, then the 2d6 persistent condition replaces the 4 persistent condition.
-if the number is less than or equal to 4, the 4 persistent condition remains

This doesn't work as you have to make that determination when the 2d6 is GAINED, not at the end of the affected creature's next turn.

There is only one box for "Persistent Fire Damage." If there is something already in the box you can't put a second one in unless its bigger (and it replaces). You can't "put it to the side and figure it out later" because then its not in the box.

Only things in the box count.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honest question - where is the rule that you roll each round? Just couldn’t find it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Liegence wrote:
Honest question - where is the rule that you roll each round? Just couldn’t find it.

Page 621.

Quote:

Instead of taking persistent

damage immediately, you take it at the end of each of your
turns as long as you have the condition, rolling any damage
dice anew each time
.


Thanks!!!


Draco18s wrote:
Aricks wrote:

-at the end of subject's next turn, roll 2d6

-if that number is greater than 4, then the 2d6 persistent condition replaces the 4 persistent condition.
-if the number is less than or equal to 4, the 4 persistent condition remains

This doesn't work as you have to make that determination when the 2d6 is GAINED, not at the end of the affected creature's next turn.

There is only one box for "Persistent Fire Damage." If there is something already in the box you can't put a second one in unless its bigger (and it replaces). You can't "put it to the side and figure it out later" because then its not in the box.

Only things in the box count.

I think I might have been overly wordy in the last paragraph because I said the same thing :)

It's a paradox. You have to replace the persistent damage condition when applied but you can't know which is stronger until you roll and you can't roll until the end of the affected thing's turn.

There might be a workable path though. I keep looking in the rules and I don't see anything that technically says you have to roll the damage at the end of the affected's turn, just that it is taken at the end of the affected's turn and that you are "rolling any damage dice anew each time". So as long as it's rerolled before it's taken again it doesn't matter when you do it.

So, would it really be wrong to roll the damage dice on application of a new persistent damage condition to see which condition is stronger?

EDIT: looking at the damage rules entry might even support this, since it says you roll the damage after a successful strike or whatnot and that persistent is taken at the end of the target's turn, but I didn't see anything specific about when you rolled persistent damage, so I think we can go with rolling on application, the question then becomes when is the best time to reroll any already present persistent damge.


I think this is a table tone question. as a DM I would go with taking the average if it is higher and roll, only take the flat damage if it is at least 1 whole point higher. but that is me. I can see plenty of tables that would rather go with the consistent value and especially lethal tables would house rule and compare both values round by round. I could also see using the average value and truncating it instead of rolling but I personally think that is not as exciting.

Average meaning take a dice roll, calculate the average, and use that as the comparison.


Aricks wrote:
So, would it really be wrong to roll the damage dice on application of a new persistent damage condition to see which condition is stronger?

As far as I'm concerned, any method that sometimes says 2d4 < 1d4 is wrong.

And any method that sometimes says 1d10 < 1d4 is wrong.

Why? Both common sense and because either of those imply that someone with 1d10 persistent fire damage can be partially cured by inflicting 1d4 persistent fire damage on them and getting lucky, which is very, very wrong.


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Aricks wrote:
So, would it really be wrong to roll the damage dice on application of a new persistent damage condition to see which condition is stronger?

As far as I'm concerned, any method that sometimes says 2d4 < 1d4 is wrong.

And any method that sometimes says 1d10 < 1d4 is wrong.

Why? Both common sense and because either of those imply that someone with 1d10 persistent fire damage can be partially cured by inflicting 1d4 persistent fire damage on them and getting lucky, which is very, very wrong.

I don't disagree with you, both from a game feel and mechanics point of view. A small bottle of gasoline thrown on a fire made by a larger bottle of gasoline, as far as I'm aware, does not make the fire smaller. Yes it's a fantasy world with magic and dragons but I feel some real world mechanics are safe to apply here.

I figure if we can get it to the point where the rules as written can be consistently applied, then we can go from there to "change the rules as written so a smaller persistent condition can't overwrite a larger one, unless that's the intention".

It does seem to me like the rules as written allow for a 4 fixed persistent effect to overwrite a 3d12 persistent effect, and unless that's intended the persistent damage rules need a few tweaks.

So here's a question: what would be a better solution? I honestly see why they might keep it as is, since it's simple. The solution needs to be quick to resolve so it can be handled and move on to the next part of combat. It also has to deal with values that might be fixed, dice based, or a combination of the two.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aricks wrote:
So here's a question: what would be a better solution? I honestly see why they might keep it as is, since it's simple. The solution needs to be quick to resolve so it can be handled and move on to the next part of combat. It also has to deal with values that might be fixed, dice based, or a combination of the two.

Not sure what you mean by "keep it as it is," but I would go with "the one with higher max damage wins, break ties with higher min damage, break further ties by seniority because it doesn't matter at that point."

(Fixed values are not special in any interesting way, you're just rolling d1s, e.g. 4 = 4d1.)

If both conditions are of the form XdY, max and min suffice to determine either completely, so you'll never have to break ties beyond min.

Note that for XdY, finding the max (X*Y) and min (X) requires no non-trivial math.

A "seriously complex" condition in the above sense requires something like
"2*(2d6) vs 4d6" or
"(d4+d10) vs (d6+d8)"
etc
which I believe have the properties that
(a) Paizo isn't going to publish an effect that does 2*(2d6) (or whatever) persistent damage, and neither will any 3pp, at least not before PF3 comes out.
(b) If you did end up with such a situation, it really doesn't matter which one you keep, so you might as well not do any math and just keep the oldest one. Or roll a d2 (also known as "flipping a coin"), whatever.
I mention such extreme theoretical possibilities only out of an obsession with completeness. In practice the rule is "higher max wins, break ties with higher min."


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Aricks wrote:
So here's a question: what would be a better solution? I honestly see why they might keep it as is, since it's simple. The solution needs to be quick to resolve so it can be handled and move on to the next part of combat. It also has to deal with values that might be fixed, dice based, or a combination of the two.

Not sure what you mean by "keep it as it is," but I would go with "the one with higher max damage wins, break ties with higher min damage, break further ties by seniority because it doesn't matter at that point."

(Fixed values are not special in any interesting way, you're just rolling d1s, e.g. 4 = 4d1.)

If both conditions are of the form XdY, max and min suffice to determine either completely, so you'll never have to break ties beyond min.

Note that for XdY, finding the max (X*Y) and min (X) requires no non-trivial math.

A "seriously complex" condition in the above sense requires something like
"2*(2d6) vs 4d6" or
"(d4+d10) vs (d6+d8)"
etc
which I believe have the properties that
(a) Paizo isn't going to publish an effect that does 2*(2d6) (or whatever) persistent damage, and neither will any 3pp, at least not before PF3 comes out.
(b) If you did end up with such a situation, it really doesn't matter which one you keep, so you might as well not do any math and just keep the oldest one. Or roll a d2 (also known as "flipping a coin"), whatever.
I mention such extreme theoretical possibilities only out of an obsession with completeness. In practice the rule is "higher max wins, break ties with higher min."

The version you lay out should suffice, and actually improves on using averages, since it breaks the 1d4+1 vs 1d6 die tie.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Persistent Damage - Dice vs Flat Number? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.