For reference, the rules on duplicate effect that's being implied by the OP:
Duplicate Effects
When you’re affected by the same thing multiple times, only one instance applies, using the higher level of the effects, or the newer effect if the two are the same level. For example, if you were using mage armor and then cast it again, you’d still benefit from only one casting of that spell. Casting a spell again on the same target might get you a better duration or effect if it were cast at a higher level the second time, but otherwise doing so gives you no advantage.
Yeah... It seems fairly clear to me that this applies, but thematically it is two unique arrows that are pinning them. Personally I would probably rule that you'd need to unpin both arrows if two separate attack rolls both applied the crit spec effect, but that you could attempt to unpin yourself from both with a higher DC.
However, I'm well aware that that's not RAW.
Redundant Conditions for reference.
A creature with the immobilized condition set by two different bow attacks would only need to free themselves once. Additional bow critical hits don't compound. At least as far as I can tell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would it be the same if they are immobilized by an arrow, a grapple, manacles and an Entangle spell all at the same time ?
Yeah as far as I can tell. The GM would have to pick the highest level effect that is immobilizing the target. All of the others would just fall off.
That gets a bit weird to imagine, especially in the case of a grapple which can be ended off the targets turn, but rules as printed, that is how Conditions work.
I mean you wouldn't argue that someone who has been put to sleep by two different sleep effects, say the sleep spell and a sleep poison, has to wake up twice right?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would it be the same if they are immobilized by an arrow, a grapple, manacles and an Entangle spell all at the same time ?Yeah as far as I can tell. The GM would have to pick the highest level effect that is immobilizing the target. All of the others would just fall off.
That gets a bit weird to imagine, especially in the case of a grapple which can be ended off the targets turn, but rules as printed, that is how Conditions work.
I mean you wouldn't argue that someone who has been put to sleep by two different sleep effects, say the sleep spell and a sleep poison, has to wake up twice right?
As there are to stages of waking up in real life (getting out of bed, having the first coffee), this is not the best example. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean you wouldn't argue that someone who has been put to sleep by two different sleep effects, say the sleep spell and a sleep poison, has to wake up twice right?
With the rules seeming to be quite clear and the reason for this likely being simplicity it still opens up some interesting ways of rules interaction.
For example you could theoretically override an effect that you are powerless against with an effect that you can remove and call it a day.
As there are to stages of waking up in real life (getting out of bed, having the first coffee), this is not the best example. :PWould it be the same if they are immobilized by an arrow, a grapple, manacles and an Entangle spell all at the same time ?Yeah as far as I can tell. The GM would have to pick the highest level effect that is immobilizing the target. All of the others would just fall off.
That gets a bit weird to imagine, especially in the case of a grapple which can be ended off the targets turn, but rules as printed, that is how Conditions work.
I mean you wouldn't argue that someone who has been put to sleep by two different sleep effects, say the sleep spell and a sleep poison, has to wake up twice right?
But there are no stages of waking up in PF2. It's either asleep or awake. Unless I'm missing a "groggy" condition. :)
With the rules seeming to be quite clear and the reason for this likely being simplicity it still opens up some interesting ways of rules interaction.
For example you could theoretically override an effect that you are powerless against with an effect that you can remove and call it a day.
That's actually not really an issue due to Duplicate Effects. Unless somehow a higher level effect is easier to break, not likely given that most DC's are calculated by level, then the stronger condition would be the one the GM can apply ignoring the newer and weaker one.
I had the same thought at first, a friendly grappling you and walking away to break the grapple to end an opponents grapple. That only works if a lower level creature were grappling you in the first place, and arguably that is just a roundabout aid action, and cost your ally two actions to perform.
That's actually not really an issue due to Duplicate Effects. Unless somehow a higher level effect is easier to break, not likely given that most DC's are calculated by level, then the stronger condition would be the one the GM can apply ignoring the newer and weaker one.
I had the same thought at first, a friendly grappling you and walking away to break the grapple to end an opponents grapple. That only works if a lower level creature were grappling you in the first place, and arguably that is just a roundabout aid action, and cost your ally two actions to perform.
Actually there are two issues with this, exactly because the clauses listed under "duplicate" or how the game calls it redundant effects.
1) The longer duration prevails, not the stronger one
If an effect would impose a condition you already have, you now have that condition for the longer of the two durations. The shorter-duration condition effectively ends...
So if hit by an strong but short duration effect you can potentially remove it easier by replacing it with a weaker (in terms of DC) but longer duration effect.
2) There might be ways to remove one condition, but not the other, so replacing the original condition could potentially be of great use
Any ability that removes a condition removes it entirely, no matter what its condition value is or how many times you’ve been affected by it.
For example if you get hit by a poison that causes you to be immobilized for 1 minute, but you have means to apply a spell that keeps you immobilized for 1 hour, you can now remove your immobilized condition via Dispel Magic.
Note that I am not saying that any such procedure would be super effective in terms of action economy or reliability, just that they are possible using RAW.
RE: Ubertron_X (Decided not to direct quote so I didn't have to reformat the spoiler's. Sue me.)
1. I am not talking about the Condition itself. I am talking about the Action or effect that is effecting the character. If a level +2 creature grapples you and inflicts the Immobilized Condition, your ally who is your level's grapple wouldn't effect the grappled person, leaving them grappled. The higher level of "thing" that effects the character prevails before conditions are ever compared.
2. This one is a bit more up in the air. In this case, I would probably still default to the higher level of the effect, even if they are different. So sure, burn a spell slot to remove a lower level than you poison that you could have just used an antidote for.
|
1) The longer duration prevails, not the stronger one
If an effect would impose a condition you already have, you now have that condition for the longer of the two durations. The shorter-duration condition effectively ends...So if hit by an strong but short duration effect you can potentially remove it easier by replacing it with a weaker (in terms of DC) but longer duration effect.
Not quite true. If you were afflicted with say, Stupified 2 for 1 round and stupified 1 for 1 minute, you would still be Stupified 2 for that 1 round. If you then got Stupified 2 for 5 rounds before the initial one was over, it is at that point the Stupified 2 for 1 round would end. You are still Stupified 1 for 1 minute. It's just saying the durations for equal conditions don't STACK, not that a lesser but longer effect ends short powerful ones.
Reference: Targeting Finisher
1) The longer duration prevails, not the stronger one
If an effect would impose a condition you already have, you now have that condition for the longer of the two durations. The shorter-duration condition effectively ends...So if hit by an strong but short duration effect you can potentially remove it easier by replacing it with a weaker (in terms of DC) but longer duration effect.Not quite true. If you were afflicted with say, Stupified 2 for 1 round and stupified 1 for 1 minute, you would still be Stupified 2 for that 1 round. If you then got Stupified 2 for 5 rounds before the initial one was over, it is at that point the Stupified 2 for 1 round would end. You are still Stupified 1 for 1 minute. It's just saying the durations for equal conditions don't STACK, not that a lesser but longer effect ends short powerful ones.
Reference: Targeting Finisher
This is only for conditions that have a numerical value of different strength attached to them. Conditions like Immobilized do not have a numerical value attached to them, so the longer duration one would simply replaced the shorter one.
The higher level of "thing" that effects the character prevails before conditions are ever compared.
While this sounds perfectly logical and may very well be RAW in addition to RAI do you have any reference for this?
Counter question (DC numbers are just examples):
You are level 6 and step into a hazard and are affected by a suitably strong Sleep spell (5th level, no incap, DC30) and you fail your save. In the same round you are also in the area of another enemy Sleep spell (4th level, no incap, DC25) but this time you roll bad and critically fail your save.
Which condition prevails and what is the respective DC?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The higher level of "thing" that effects the character prevails before conditions are ever compared.While this sounds perfectly logical and may very well be RAW in addition to RAI do you have any reference for this?
Fortunately, the relevant rule was already referenced up thread by Aw3som3-117.
Duplicate Effects: When you’re affected by the same thing multiple times, only one instance applies, using the higher level of the effects, or the newer effect if the two are the same level. For example, if you were using mage armor and then cast it again, you’d still benefit from only one casting of that spell. Casting a spell again on the same target might get you a better duration or effect if it were cast at a higher level the second time, but otherwise doing so gives you no advantage.
This establishes a game convention that you can use to adjudicate corner cases. Like the following.
Counter question (DC numbers are just examples):
You are level 6 and step into a hazard and are affected by a suitably strong Sleep spell (5th level, no incap, DC30) and you fail your save. In the same round you are also in the area of another enemy Sleep spell (4th level, no incap, DC25) but this time you roll bad and critically fail your save.
Which condition prevails and what is the respective DC?
Duplicate Effects tells us that if you are affected by the same thing multiple times, the sleep spell, you use the higher level of the effect, or the newer effect if the two are the same level. So regardless of the save result for the second lower level Sleep spell, the Hazard's Sleep spell would be dominant due to it's higher level. You would then use it's counteract DC for any attempt at removing the spell, and it's duration would be used since the other sleep spell effectively ends.
This seems counterintuitive, but it makes sense when you consider the Counteract DC of an effect as a metric when comparing effects. While the Sleep spell is somewhat unique in that the condition it inflicts can be ended relatively easily despite the level difference, that is not the case with other spells where the counteract DC is much more important.
Ok, lets play a little devils advocate here (for the sake of friendly banter).
effect An effect is the result of an ability, though an ability’s exact effect is sometimes contingent on the result of a check or other roll.
condition An ongoing effect that changes how a character can act or alters some of their statistics.
So it seems that every condition is an effect, but I think it will be easy enough to agree that not every effect is a condition. Which simply means that conditions are just a tiny part of all possible effects.
Now lets look at the individual rulings for each.
Duplicate effects: When you’re affected by the same thing multiple times, only one instance applies, using the higher level of the effects, or the newer effect if the two are the same level.
Redundant conditions: You can have a given condition only once at a time. If an effect would impose a condition you already have, you now have that condition for the longer of the two durations. The shorter-duration condition effectively ends, though other conditions caused by the original, shorter-duration effect might continue.
So I agree that my previous example would not work as you can not be affected by the same effect (or spell) twice, respectively you would then use the higher level effect (spell).
However I am still of the opinion that if you receive the same condition from different effects then the specific rules for conditions supersede the general rules for effects, i.e. the longer duration condition is the relevant one, which by the way would be totally in line with the example in Redundant conditions.
For example, let’s say you have been hit by a monster that drains your vitality; your wound causes you to be enfeebled 2 and flat-footed until the end of the monster’s next turn. Before the end of that creature’s next turn, a trap poisons you, making you enfeebled 2 for 1 minute. In this case, the enfeebled 2 that lasts for 1 minute replaces the enfeebled 2 from the monster, so you would be enfeebled 2 for the longer duration. You would remain flat-footed, since nothing replaced that condition, and it still lasts only until the end of the monster’s next turn. Any ability that removes a condition removes it entirely, no matter what its condition value is or how many times you’ve been affected by it. In the example above, a spell that removes the enfeebled condition from you would remove it entirely—the spell wouldn’t need to remove it twice.
As you can see the longer duration condition (trap) simply replaces the shorter duration condition (monster), no matter their respective levels or DCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, there is definitely room for nuance when it comes to different effects that inflict the same condition. But I will also say that in the case of trying to use a condition inflicting effect on an Ally to short change a hostile effect by ending it early, I'd generally stick with the hostile effect unless there was a commensurate cost incurred.
Supported directly by the rules? Nah, not really. But doing otherwise starts trending towards a "too good to be true" interpretation of redundant conditions for me personally. But again, I could see some situations where the cost incurred mitigate the too good to be true-ness.
For instance, burning a high level spell slot to inflict a condition just to end the condition early by not sustaining it or dismissing it. Like a Curse Polymorph effect. In that sort of case, I could see allowing such a remedy.
If you are entangled and manacled at the same time, the thing to help with how you picture it is that flexing hard enough to break manacles will probably also break the vines at the same time. It is one full body motion of sheer strength that breaks you free of everything holding you down.