No, only the highest source applies if there's more than one source of the same type of Persistent Damage. https://2e.aonprd.com/Conditions.aspx?ID=29
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Persistent damage is dealt on the victim's turn so it wouldn't matter if it was 1 strike dealing 2 different instances of persistent bleed damage or 2 strikes each dealing their own persistent bleed; by the time their turn comes up you just roll for the better of the 2 instances.
So if I hit someone three times, inflicting 1d6 persistent bleed each time, on their turn they roll 1d6 bleed three times, taking only the highest result?
So if I hit someone three times, inflicting 1d6 persistent bleed each time, on their turn they roll 1d6 bleed three times, taking only the highest result?
Nope.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Overriding the other conditions happens when you would gain the new one, not when you would take the damage, so rolling multiple times seems wrong here.
Why not ? It seems pretty legit actually.So if I hit someone three times, inflicting 1d6 persistent bleed each time, on their turn they roll 1d6 bleed three times, taking only the highest result?Nope.
Yes, it's sensible, but it's also more complex tracking (in a system that significantly cut down on complexity), plus falls under the TGTBT clause.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the idea is that you are inflicting a status of X. The rules state that you cannot suffer from a status multiple times, instead one overrides another if it is more severe.
i.e.
You inflict 1d6 bleed (X).
Target has X
Again, you inflict 1d6 bleed (X)
Is X or X greater?
X is the greater
Target has X
You inflict 2d6 bleed (2X)
Is X or 2X greater?
2X is the greater
Target has 2X.
|
I feel the same as darksol.
The highest damage between 1d6, 1d6 and 1d6 is 1d6.
The highest damage between 1d6, 1d8 and 1d12 is 1d12.
Regardless the roll's outcome.
The roll's outcome IS the damage though.
The take above is far simpler. It nicely solves the Which is higher ? 4 or 1d6 ? cases.
It is what I will use in my games.
And I kick myself for not realizing earlier that this was how it works.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The take above is far simpler. It nicely solves the "Which is higher: 4 or 1d6?" cases.
This.
4 or 1d6?
2d4 or 1d8?
6d6 or 4d8+2?
Unanswerable questions are best left alone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd let the player(s) decide in those weird cases where it is a little ambiguous as to which is larger.
Do you let them decide when they are inflicting persistent damage, when they are receiving persistent damage, or both?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The take above is far simpler. It nicely solves the "Which is higher: 4 or 1d6?" cases.This.
4 or 1d6?
2d4 or 1d8?
6d6 or 4d8+2?Unanswerable questions are best left alone.
Did you intentionally put the larger value on the left for all of these? Becuase you did.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did you intentionally put the larger value on the left for all of these? Becuase you did.Yeah, lol. No ambiguity whatsoever. 4, 3.5; 5, 4.5; 21, 20.
Doesn't matter in this case. You could select this or that if you were allowed, but inherently rules don't discern specific cases at all.“Which is greater” only gets funky with resists and specific HP values
4 v 1d6, 4 is greater except if the enemy has 5 or 6 HP I’d rather 1d6. If the enemy has resist 4 I’d also rather 1d6.
2d4 vs 1d8 - if the enemy has 2-6 HP, I’d rather 2d4, if they have 7 or 8 or resist 5 I’d rather 1d8.
The specific rule being referenced here simply says:
If you would gain more than one persistent damage condition with the same damage type, the higher amount of damage overrides the lower amount
You're making the assumption that the average value of a die is used - which is a fairly reasonable assumption, but it's not necessarily going to be the one everyone makes. Comparing 4 vs 2 bleed damage there is no ambiguity, but comparing 4 vs 1d6 bleed damage is ambiguous. One could make the ruling that you take the maximum possible damage delivered as the differentiating factor, trying to ensure that the highest possible value is always selected. One could make the ruling that you take the largest minimum value to ensure that you can't have a situation where you discarded '3' in favour of '1d6', but then had lower damage as the outcome. There is inevitable ambiguity in the question of "which is higher, 3 or [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]"?
|
No, only the highest source applies if there's more than one source of the same type of Persistent Damage. https://2e.aonprd.com/Conditions.aspx?ID=29
On the other hand, two untyped damages does stack in the same strike, its not different sources.
Otherwise Strength Damage, Weapon Specialization Damage and Rage Damage would not stack.
And Persistent Damage is still DAMAGE and can even be doubled on a critical hit.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=704
For example, if you throw a lesser acid flask and hit your target, that creature takes 1 acid damage, 1d6 persistent acid damage, and 1 acid splash damage. All other creatures within 5 feet of it take 1 acid splash damage. On a critical hit, the target takes 2 acid damage and 2d6 persistent acid damage, but the splash damage is still 1.
It appears as “X persistent [type] damage,” where “X” is the amount of damage dealt and “[type]”
In the OP example, X = 1d6+1d12. The source is the strike.
It gets even weird when you add Double slice, flurry of blows, etc to the mix, since they say you add the damage from both strikes before apply.
Source is not described in the rulebook, so you can try say that each item, abilities, etc is a different source. But since its still damage, and you sum up all the damage before apply it to the target, I think the right interpretation to Source in this case is when a damage is applied, in the OP example, when the strike damage is applied.
|
|
I think in " If you would gain more than one persistent damage condition with the same damage type, the higher amount of damage overrides the lower amount. ", people read "override" as "eliminate", as if the "higher" persistent damage condition replaced the "lower". Such is not the case. They coexist.
And, as long as you have both, when comes the time for persistent damage to be applied, "the higher amount of damage overrides the lower amount".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tried to analyze what is actually RAW - as what does it mean numerically.
Let us start with what all agree on:
CRB p.621
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.
That is clear - only the highest amount of damage of a certain type applies.
Next step - how is damage defined:
Damage is sometimes given as a fixed amount, but more often than not you’ll make a damage roll to determine how much damage you deal.
Actually that is step 1: Roll the Damage Dice and Apply Modifiers, Bonuses, and Penalties
So the CRB actually says - to determine the damage you have to roll the dice and apply modifiers to figure out what damage is.
It is claimed that d8 is greater then d6. Actually if I roll a d6 and a d8 then the following happens:
The estimated damage of d8 is indeed higher - 4.5 vs 3.5 but if you actually roll both then
The d6 is expected to be higher in 31.25% of cases
The d6 is expected to be the same value as the d8 in 12.5% of cases
The d6 is expected to be lower in 56.25% of cases
So yes - in 68.75% of cases the d8 yields the higher (or equal) damage. But that is a far cry from stating damage of a d8 is (always) greater then d6.
But does it actually matter?
Here is a table for d6 - taking the highest value
Number dice -> expected value
1d6 -> 3.5
2d6 -> 3.95
3d6 -> 4.64
4d6 -> 5.07
5d6 -> 5.34
6d6 -> 5.51
Eventually it is near to guaranteed that you roll a 6 at least once - so this will lead eventually to 6.
Now the same in %
1d6 -> 100%
2d6 -> 113%
3d6 -> 133%
4d6 -> 145%
5d6 -> 153%
6d6 -> 158%
So 3 instances of d6 persistent would end up more or less the equivalent of d6+1 and 6 instances would be d6+2 (using expected value - it never can go above 6 !!)
So in reality we tend to ignore this. The few extra % is just not worth the hassle to keep track as GM. My opinion of what is expected of a GM is that he should weave an interesting story and keep the group entertained.
The rules are there to set expectations - not to bog down the game play.
Now there is a much bigger problem with persistent damage - getting rid of it !!
Using a d20 greater / equal 15 means that in 5.7% of cases (just above the chance of a nat20) you still have persistent damage after 8 rounds. Rolling that many dice is tedious - doesn't add to the fun. So here is what happens mathematically if you roll for each instance seperate to end:
Number of d6 persistent -> average dice rolls to remove it -> chance to fail after 10 rolls
1d6 3.33 2.8%
2d6 4.71 5.6%
3d6 6.34 10.8%
4d6 8.12 20.5%
5d6 9.98 36.8%
6d6 11.88 60.0%
What do I do in my games?
1) I try to actually apply persistent damage - I would guess in 25%+ cases it gets silently forgotten (also by players)
2) I take the 'highest dice' and roll only once - so in case of d6 and d8 I use a d8
3) I do exemptions in case of 4 persistent vs d6 persistent and 5 damage reduction - in this case I roll a d6 with the off chance to get a 6
4) A single check removes all instances of a given type
Is this RAW? In the most literal reading of RAW likely not (see my own analysis) - but it is pragmatic and keeps the game going. It is also how I see it normally done at game tables.
Also keep in mind - in my view the two real issues influencing the true damage at the table aren't even discussed
a) forgetting to apply persistent damage (VTT and automation can help here - players seem fine if you forget to remind them of their damage ...)
b) getting rid of every single instance
|
|
override literally means to set aside, disregard or nullify:
The argument that they coexist is in direct violation of the rules.https://www.dictionary.com/browse/override
3) to disregard, set aside, or nullify; countermand:
4) to take precedence over; preempt or supersede:
so replacing it is the most correct interpretation of override.
Which rules ? That is a honest question, for I really think this reading nicely explains how to deal with the d6 vs 4 without relying on max, means or whatever formula we invent. And I did not find anything in the RAW that definitely proved the reading was wrong. But I might have missed something.
Also I read override as 4 : take precedence over.
Arcadian made my rebuttal perfectly.
For the sake of simplicity, if the damage roll and type are the same, I tend not to double up on the persistent damage. As has been said, RAW or not, it's just too much of a hassle.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if I hit someone three times, inflicting 1d6 persistent bleed each time, on their turn they roll 1d6 bleed three times, taking only the highest result?
What if, instead of compare dices and use them each time persistent damage is about to be applied, we use the rolled value.
This follow the "step 1: Roll the Damage Dice and Apply Modifiers, Bonuses, and Penalties" and solve all comparisons.
Persistent bleed damage ( PBD )
d6 PBD , roll 2 = 2 PBD
Apply another d6 PBD
roll 3 = 3 PBD
Apply d8 PBD
roll 2 = keeps the 3 PBD
Apply 2d6+1 PBD
roll (2 and 4), total 7 = 7 PBD
Apply 4d6+1 PBD
roll (4, 3, 2, 1) total 11 = 11 PBD
|
|
So if I hit someone three times, inflicting 1d6 persistent bleed each time, on their turn they roll 1d6 bleed three times, taking only the highest result?What if, instead of compare dices and use them each time persistent damage is about to be applied, we use the rolled value.
This follow the "step 1: Roll the Damage Dice and Apply Modifiers, Bonuses, and Penalties" and solve all comparisons.
(Examples)
That would actually be a nice way to work with... Except it's contradicted by CRB621: "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."
I do not see any contradiction though : you roll anew and make the comparison each time.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The disagreement I have is based in that each persistent type of damage is considered a condition.
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.
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 rules about applying damage aren't even relevant.
You can't have multiple bleed conditions on at a time because they are considered the same condition.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope : "Redundant Conditions with Values
Conditions with different values are considered different conditions. If you’re affected by a condition with a value multiple times, you apply only the highest value, although you might have to track both durations if one has a lower value but lasts longer. "
Nope : "Redundant Conditions with Values
Conditions with different values are considered different conditions. If you’re affected by a condition with a value multiple times, you apply only the highest value, although you might have to track both durations if one has a lower value but lasts longer. "
So what you're saying is that persistent damage conditions of the same type with different values stack because they are different conditions?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would go with the 'highest' amount of persistent damage being the instance with the highest expected value. It isn't that hard to calculate the expected value of any particular dice amount: Half the die size + 0.5.
Examples:
1d6 => 3.5
3d4 + 2 => 9.5
2d8 => 9
And while it is an interesting idea to allow all of the various persistent damage conditions to be rolled each round and take the highest, that falls under too good to be true. It exponentially increases your expected value of the damage.
For example, the expected value of 1d6 is 3.5. But the expected value of 1d6 three times and take the highest is almost 5 (more accurately, it comes out to 4.9583 according to my calculations).
That effect probably gets lower as the number of dice of the persistent damage increases. So the expected value of 3d6 is probably much more similar to the expected value of 3d6 three times and take the highest. I haven't calculated that one out though. The reasoning is that the more dice you roll each time, the more strongly the value will trend towards its expected value. So because the variance of 3d6 is lower than 1d6, the difference between the three separate rolls each round is also going to be lower.
But in any case it is still more to track from round to round and more to roll each round. And in best case (low variance between rolls) the difference is negligible, and in worst case the difference is too much of an increase in damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope : "Redundant Conditions with Values
Conditions with different values are considered different conditions. If you’re affected by a condition with a value multiple times, you apply only the highest value, although you might have to track both durations if one has a lower value but lasts longer. "
Example: A character is affected by '3d4 persistent fire damage', '2d6 persistent fire damage', and '1d12 persistent fire damage'.
Whatever method you use to determine which of these conditions has the highest value, that character is only going to be affected by one of them. The rules do not say that the character should be rolling all three and taking the highest result. You choose one of the conditions and roll that one value each round.
|
|
Nope : "Redundant Conditions with Values
Conditions with different values are considered different conditions. If you’re affected by a condition with a value multiple times, you apply only the highest value, although you might have to track both durations if one has a lower value but lasts longer. "Example: A character is affected by '3d4 persistent fire damage', '2d6 persistent fire damage', and '1d12 persistent fire damage'.
Whatever method you use to determine which of these conditions has the highest value, that character is only going to be affected by one of them. The rules do not say that the character should be rolling all three and taking the highest result. You choose one of the conditions and roll that one value each round.
That is not how I read it at all. And since my reading nicely solves the problem of d6 vs 4, I will not be convinced otherwise unless someone can find an explicit RAW that refutes it.
And yes, I think taking more damage because you got hit with three 1d6 persistent damage rather only one is not too good to be true.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope : "Redundant Conditions with Values
Conditions with different values are considered different conditions. If you’re affected by a condition with a value multiple times, you apply only the highest value, although you might have to track both durations if one has a lower value but lasts longer. "Example: A character is affected by '3d4 persistent fire damage', '2d6 persistent fire damage', and '1d12 persistent fire damage'.
Whatever method you use to determine which of these conditions has the highest value, that character is only going to be affected by one of them. The rules do not say that the character should be rolling all three and taking the highest result. You choose one of the conditions and roll that one value each round.
That is not how I read it at all. And since my reading nicely solves the problem of d6 vs 4, I will not be convinced otherwise unless someone can find an explicit RAW that refutes it.
And yes, I think taking more damage because you got hit with three 1d6 persistent damage rather only one is not too good to be true.
How is 2D6 a value? The rule you referenced is in regards to things like Stunned 1, Frightened 2, Enfeebled 3, etc. Persistent damage does not mention the word "value" anywhere in its description, meaning your rule of "Redundant Conditions with Values" doesn't even apply to Persistent Damage whatsoever; because it doesn't list a value of any kind.
Even with the argument of "X is the value, and it's a variable," the fact that it's a variable instead of a strict value doesn't really hold any water.
In addition, it doesn't solve things without overly complicating it. In a system that's done plenty of efforts to cut down on bookkeeping and tracking, needing to keep track of "You have 6 separate instances of D6 persistent bleed damage, you need to roll 6D6 and take the highest, and roll 6 flat checks" defeats the entire point of this edition's efforts to remove that being a crucial component of gameplay. Yes, even if it's more realistic, that is too good to be true territory.
|
|
How often do you have 6 separate instances of the same type of persistent damage ?
Hyperbole never helps.
And getting the higher of three d6 rolls is to good to be true, but adding three d6 of persistent damage from different types is just fine ?
Sorry. Still not convinced at all.
And I still think taking the same damage whatever the number of 1d6 persistent damage you got hit with is too bad to be true.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Persistent damage comes from effects like acid, being on fire, or many other situations. It appears as “X persistent [type] damage,” where “X” is the amount of damage dealt and “[type]” is the damage type. 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. After you take persistent damage, roll a DC 15 flat check to see if you recover from the persistent damage. If you succeed, the condition ends.
As per RAW, the 1d6, 2d4, 5, or whatever is X. All of those values are 'damage dealt'. Therefore, when it says:
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.
you are comparing X to see which is "higher".
I would also reference:
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.
If they have the same damage type, you cannot be affected by multiple iterations of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right, one cannot have more than one case of Bleed for their damage to be compared later when rolling. It's compared immediately, only the highest applies/exists, and if it ends, all Bleed goes away. Since it's generally random (and not retroactive), one kinda has to go with the expected average.
Yes, that's no help when it's 2d6 vs. 2d4+2 vs. a flat 7, but I'd be surprised if a table has ever faced a similar situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How often do you have 6 separate instances of the same type of persistent damage ?
Hyperbole never helps.
And getting the higher of three d6 rolls is to good to be true, but adding three d6 of persistent damage from different types is just fine ?
Sorry. Still not convinced at all.
And I still think taking the same damage whatever the number of 1d6 persistent damage you got hit with is too bad to be true.
Wounding weapon property is one example. Numerous monsters have "plus bleed" on their attacks as well.
It's not hyperbole. Plenty of numerous monsters with on-hit persistent damage effects exist, and it's not uncommon to throw several lower level monsters with such effects onto an adventuring party.
It is because you're suffering acid, fire, bleed, cold, etc. Each are brought on by a source separate from one another, plus being typed separately from one another, and the rules expressly call them out as being stacking.
|
|
That is not how I read it at all. And since my reading nicely solves the problem of d6 vs 4, I will not be convinced otherwise unless someone can find an explicit RAW that refutes it.And yes, I think taking more damage because you got hit with three 1d6 persistent damage rather only one is not too good to be true.
You mean the explicit rules on CR 621 that multiple times people have quoted:
CRB Pg 621 wrote:
If you would gain more than one persistent damage condition with the same damage type, the higher amount of damage overrides the lower amountThe decision to keep or override is done when the condition is gained, not when the damage is rolled.
As I said before, I read override as taking precedence (ie only the higher number applies), not as You lose the additional condition.
And how do you compare amounts of damage unless you roll them ? They are not talking about max or means or whatever, just amounts.
BTW your last sentence is not supported by the RAW. It is a common interpretation, nothing more.
|
|
The one thing that would be too much to me would be having to make multiple flat checks to remove essentially the same source of persistent damage. That shouldn't happen. Would make recovering incredibly more difficult if players are getting bled from multiple monsters at once.
That is a good game argument, even if it is not a RAW argument.
But IIRC, even if you suffer from different sources of the same condition, once you remove the condition, you lose all the instances.
Having several rolls might actually increase the chance of getting rid of the condition.
EDIT - Found it : "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."
|
|
How often do you have 6 separate instances of the same type of persistent damage ?
Hyperbole never helps.
And getting the higher of three d6 rolls is to good to be true, but adding three d6 of persistent damage from different types is just fine ?
Sorry. Still not convinced at all.
And I still think taking the same damage whatever the number of 1d6 persistent damage you got hit with is too bad to be true.
Wounding weapon property is one example. Numerous monsters have "plus bleed" on their attacks as well.
It's not hyperbole. Plenty of numerous monsters with on-hit persistent damage effects exist, and it's not uncommon to throw several lower level monsters with such effects onto an adventuring party.
It is because you're suffering acid, fire, bleed, cold, etc. Each are brought on by a source separate from one another, plus being typed separately from one another, and the rules expressly call them out as being stacking.
So stacking is not considered Too good to be true by the rules. Why would taking the higher rolled damage, which is less powerful than stacking, be Too good to be true then ?