|
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.
The last point is the most convincing IMO. It again opens the d6 vs 4 overcomplicated case though, which rolling amounts each time and comparing completely avoided.
So, not really sure that keeping the different iterations and comparing the damage each time is RAW, but I will definitely use it at my table and ask my GMs to use it.
|
|
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.
I second this.
As for flat persistent damage, are there many of them?
And what are the odds they can interact each other?
For this second one I mean "what are the odds players/DM will have to deal with different persistent damage of the same kind, on the same creature, involving either flat damage and dice damage".
Until now I didn't even know flat bleeding damage was a thing.
TBH it is the random damages that makes comparing amounts complicated, unless you roll them that is.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The "rolling any damage dice anew each time." is what breaks the system.
Without it, the system becomes simple.
1 - Calc how much persistent damage => X
2 - Define type of damage => Y
3 - If [Y] equals one active Persistent damage already applied, take the Greater [X], otherwise Apply the condition "[X] [Y] Persistent damage"
|
|
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.
So for you..
override doesn't mean take replace as is the common definition it now means overlap and keep both.and the rules saying "when you would gain" now means "when you would take damage".
For me the rules are very clear, you make the decision to keep or replace when the condition would be applied, You only track one persistent damage of each type, and you roll damage each round.
The only part that is even slightly ambiguous is how to compare the same damage type from multiple sources. Which is where a GM makes a judgement call. But, speaking of hyperbole, how often does that actually happen?
It's pretty clear we have no common ground to work from so I'm out.
It is not "when you would gain" though, it is "if you would gain". It is not describing a moment, but a situation.
"If you gain" (and thus have affecting you) "more than one persistent damage condition with the same damage type, the higher amount of damage overrides the lower amount." This does not state that you lose all those conditions except one. Just that you suffer from only one of the amounts of damage. And that is the higher of them. And this happens when you can compare the amounts of damage.
So, still not convinced by this specific wording.
Also the wording is quite in line with what happens when you are affected by Enfeebled 1 and Enfeebled 2 for example : you suffer from both conditions but the values do not stack. Only the higher one affects you.
|
|
The "rolling any damage dice anew each time." is what breaks the system.
Without it, the system becomes simple.
1 - Calc how much persistent damage => X
2 - Define type of damage => Y
3 - If [Y] equals one active Persistent damage already applied, take the Greater [X], otherwise Apply the condition "[X] [Y] Persistent damage"
That would be much simpler, yes.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look, you can play/rule it however you like in your home games. I very much encourage that. Play the game in the way that makes sense to you. Sometimes that means deviating from RAW. That is perfectly okay.
But, being affected by multiple persistent damage conditions with the same damage type is explicitly against RAW. Again, you can do it any way you want I'm your home game. But, it cannot be called RAW
|
|
I call it a different reading of the RAW, and one that does not need mathematics to find out which effects should take place. Which is why it has my preference.
Note that I previously read the RAW like all those who now disagree with me. The post in this thread that proposed this idea really opened my mind to this alternate, and IMO more relevant, reading of the RAW.
Look...being affected by multiple persistent damage conditions with the same damage type is explicitly against RAW. Again, you can do it any way you want in your home game. But, it cannot be called RAW.
Oh it can't, can it?
It is not "when you would gain" though, it is "if you would gain". It is not describing a moment, but a situation.
"If you gain" (and thus have affecting you) "more than one persistent damage condition with the same damage type, the higher amount of damage overrides the lower amount." This does not state that you lose all those conditions except one. Just that you suffer from only one of the amounts of damage. And that is the higher of them. And this happens when you can compare the amounts of damage.
So, still not convinced by this specific wording.
Also the wording is quite in line with what happens when you are affected by Enfeebled 1 and Enfeebled 2 for example : you suffer from both conditions but the values do not stack. Only the higher one affects you.
It would seem that some disagree.
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.
If the expected value is tied, I would go with the higher minimum value being higher overall. Though higher maximum value would also work - I just consider the guaranteed damage as being a more negative effect to the afflicted character.
Edit: So 7 > 2d4+2 > 2d6 because of the higher minimum damages for each.
In case that wasn't clear.
And with a comprehensive way of ordering rolled values to determine which is higher, this:
The "rolling any damage dice anew each time." is what breaks the system.
Without it, the system becomes simple.
1 - Calc how much persistent damage => X
2 - Define type of damage => Y
3 - If [Y] equals one active Persistent damage already applied, take the Greater [X], otherwise Apply the condition "[X] [Y] Persistent damage"
is the scenario that I end up in. But it can be determined which rolled value is higher at the time that the condition is applied rather than having to roll it.
------
As a side note, this same method for comparing rolled/fixed values is why I consider Goodberry (at 1d6 + 4 per level) to provide more healing than Hymn of Healing/Life Boost (at 8 per level). Same calculation.
1d6+4 > 8
Rounded up they have the same expected value, but Goodberry has better minimum value.
Especially at higher spell levels. The odds that all of the Druid's d6's roll 1's or 2's is vanishingly small.
Nevermind. The comparison between these two spells is really complicated. I do still consider Goodberry to provide better healing. But it is close.
In a case like this for persistent damage, I would let the player whose character applied the persistent damage decide which one overrides the other.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we go back to the original question and discuss how to handle multiple persistent damages of the same type in a single strike?
Rogue with Swashbuckler dedication, critical hit a a Bleeding Finisher with a Wounding Knife, apply bloody debilitaion.
Bleeding Finisher = 1d6 bleed, critical = 2d6 bleed
Wounding Rune = 1d6 bleed, critical 1d12 bleed
Knife = critical 1d6 bleed
Bloody Debilitation = 3d6 bleed, critical = 6d6 bleed
Total = 9d6+1d12
|
|
I call it a different reading of the RAW, and one that does not need mathematics to find out which effects should take place. Which is why it has my preference.
Note that I previously read the RAW like all those who now disagree with me. The post in this thread that proposed this idea really opened my mind to this alternate, and IMO more relevant, reading of the RAW.
Call it whatever you like. That changes nothing about what is RAW.
|
|
Can we go back to the original question and discuss how to handle multiple persistent damages of the same type in a single strike?
Rogue with Swashbuckler dedication, critical hit a a Bleeding Finisher with a Wounding Knife, apply bloody debilitaion.
Bleeding Finisher = 1d6 bleed, critical = 2d6 bleed
Wounding Rune = 1d6 bleed, critical 1d12 bleed
Knife = critical 1d6 bleed
Bloody Debilitation = 3d6 bleed, critical = 6d6 bleedTotal = 9d6+1d12
By my reading, each round you roll the dice and compare the results : 2d6 vs 1d12 vs 1d6 vs 6d6. Note that you cannot get less than 6 and can go up to 36.
By the way most people seem to read this the highest means is for the 6d6 and thus you only roll 6d6.
My method will get a bit more damage when 6d6 are lower than 12. Otherwise, the result is the same.
TBH, the 6d6 are so much bigger than the other values that they make the other sources pretty meaningless.
Without them, it would be more interesting to compare (2d6 vs 1d12 vs 1d6) or just 2d6.
|
|
Call it whatever you like. That changes nothing about what is RAW.I call it a different reading of the RAW, and one that does not need mathematics to find out which effects should take place. Which is why it has my preference.
Note that I previously read the RAW like all those who now disagree with me. The post in this thread that proposed this idea really opened my mind to this alternate, and IMO more relevant, reading of the RAW.
Incomplete RAW then since we have to guess what the higher amount is.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For this second one I mean "what are the odds players/DM will have to deal with different persistent damage of the same kind, on the same creature, involving either flat damage and dice damage".
If you have anyone using an alchemist fire with a caster that uses Produce Flame, it can come up. The problem is how to determine which is the "higher" amount when one value is a variable and the other is not. Do we compare based on the min damage, max damage, or average damage?
Can we go back to the original question and discuss how to handle multiple persistent damages of the same type in a single strike?
Rogue with Swashbuckler dedication, critical hit a a Bleeding Finisher with a Wounding Knife, apply bloody debilitaion.
Bleeding Finisher = 1d6 bleed, critical = 2d6 bleed
Wounding Rune = 1d6 bleed, critical 1d12 bleed
Knife = critical 1d6 bleed
Bloody Debilitation = 3d6 bleed, critical = 6d6 bleedTotal = 9d6+1d12
I don't think anyone is taking the stance that you would add all of them together. That is the stacking of conditions that the rules explicitly forbid.
The Raven Black is saying that you would roll each of those values that would apply (2d6, 1d12, 1d6, and 6d6) and then the target takes the highest of the rolled amounts. (which would probably be from the 6d6 critical of Bloody Debilitation)
Most of the rest of us are saying that you would get the 6d6 bleed because it is the highest value. The rest would be redundant and would not apply.
Incomplete RAW then since we have to guess what the higher amount is.
This is definitely true. The rules don't give us a fully specified way of determining which value is higher when the value is a rolled amount.
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 ?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.
Because I don't have to roll several flat checks to remove a single persistent damage condition when they are all separately typed and consequently stack as a result. The fact that I can't ever realistically be rid of a persistent damage condition and consequently very likely take maximum damage from the "stacking" means the conditions are far more deadly than intended.
It also bogs the game down in a way that all of the buffs and debuffs and summons in PF1 did. In a system that took efforts to stay away from that concept, your interpretation goes against that very intention.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Incomplete RAW then since we have to guess what the higher amount is.Call it whatever you like. That changes nothing about what is RAW.I call it a different reading of the RAW, and one that does not need mathematics to find out which effects should take place. Which is why it has my preference.
Note that I previously read the RAW like all those who now disagree with me. The post in this thread that proposed this idea really opened my mind to this alternate, and IMO more relevant, reading of the RAW.
Yup. But the guessing is either easy or trivial.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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."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)
I myself had missed the rule the Elicoor highlighted, that persistent damage is rolled fresh each turn, so my players and I have been playing persistent damage wrong. However, I can comment on the mathematics. Some arguments assume that dice form an ordered set. For example, Humble Gamer said:
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.
Dice, which are a kind of mathematical object known as random variables, are not an ordered set. We have cute phenomenon called Intransitive Dice, which would be a paradox if we thought dice could be arranged from lowest to highest, but I will keep my examples simpler than intransitive dice.
If Paizo limited themselves to just the damage dice, d4, d6, d8, d10, and d12, and multiples of those dice, then we could order them by the average value. We could say that 2d8 is higher than 2d6, even if after we roll the 2d8 the result is 2. The dice won't have a repeated average value until 7d4 and 5d6 both have an average of 17.5. And 17.5 damage would be awfully large for persistent damage.
But Paizo also throws in numbers. A critical success on 9th-level Acid Splash deals 5 persistent acid damage, the same as the average of 2d4. Shocking Grasp is even more shocking, because it mixes dice and numbers. A 2nd-level Shocking Grasp can deal 1d4+1 persistent electricity damage.
Both 1d6 and 1d4+1 have the same average value 3.5. Which is higher? If a character with 6 hit points remaining had a choice, then they would pick 1d4+1, because it cannot deal 6 damage. In contrast, a character with 2 hit points left would pick 1d6, because it might roll a 1. Neither die is higher. They cannot be ordered higher versus lower against each other. Nor are they the same.
In order to compare two damage dice follow the instructions, "If you would gain more than one persistent damage condition with the same damage type, the higher amount of damage overrides the lower amount," is to roll the dice and take the highest damage result.
|
|
While I appreciate the mathematical approach, I will be using the "just pick one" method.
Edit: Actually after thinking about it, I would use this method:
*higher min value
*higher average
*higher max value
Whichever option wins 2/3 is the higher one. If they are tied, refer back to "just pick one" as the difference between them at that point is trivial.
While I appreciate the mathematical approach, I will be using the "just pick one" method.
Edit: Actually after thinking about it, I would use this method:
*higher min value
*higher average
*higher max value
Whichever option wins 2/3 is the higher one. If they are tied, refer back to "just pick one" as the difference between them at that point is trivial.
3d4 and 1d10+2 both have minimum 3, average 7.5, and maximum 12. The standard deviation of 3d4 is 1.936 and the standard deviation of 1d10+2 is 2.872. Pick one.
|
|
3d4 and 1d10+2 both have minimum 3, average 7.5, and maximum 12. The standard deviation of 3d4 is 1.936 and the standard deviation of 1d10+2 is 2.872. Pick one.While I appreciate the mathematical approach, I will be using the "just pick one" method.
Edit: Actually after thinking about it, I would use this method:
*higher min value
*higher average
*higher max value
Whichever option wins 2/3 is the higher one. If they are tied, refer back to "just pick one" as the difference between them at that point is trivial.
Yeah, that falls into the "just pick one" category. As, the difference between the two will be unnoticeable.
|
|
Because I don't have to roll several flat checks to remove a single persistent damage condition when they are all separately typed and consequently stack as a result. The fact that I can't ever realistically be rid of a persistent damage condition and consequently very likely take maximum damage from the "stacking" means the conditions are far more deadly than intended.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 ?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.
It is not in any way harder than getting rid through flat checks of several differently typed persistent damage conditions.
As for the maximum damage, I do not get your point. If you lose the 6d6 above thanks to a flat check, it goes away completely, so the maximum damage is now 12 and not 36.
And if you meet the requirements for getting rid of the condition, you lose all the instances, as usual for different conditions of the same type.
However I wish to retract my previous reading that succeeding in one of the flat checks would erase all instances of the same type. Because the rule for this mentions an ability, which the flat check is not. You track them separately.
It also bogs the game down in a way that all of the buffs and debuffs and summons in PF1 did. In a system that took efforts to stay away from that concept, your interpretation goes against that very intention.
That is a good game point. Not a RAW point though.
And really it is so much simpler than all the maths presented above.
Do we really want a player and a GM entering nerdrage because they do not agree which is the higher variable ?
|
|
Yeah, that falls into the "just pick one" category. As, the difference between the two will be unnoticeable.3d4 and 1d10+2 both have minimum 3, average 7.5, and maximum 12. The standard deviation of 3d4 is 1.936 and the standard deviation of 1d10+2 is 2.872. Pick one.While I appreciate the mathematical approach, I will be using the "just pick one" method.
Edit: Actually after thinking about it, I would use this method:
*higher min value
*higher average
*higher max value
Whichever option wins 2/3 is the higher one. If they are tied, refer back to "just pick one" as the difference between them at that point is trivial.
The formula you propose, with the final step of Pick one, is definitely an efficient solution. It is also definitely a houserule.
Because I don't have to roll several flat checks to remove a single persistent damage condition when they are all separately typed and consequently stack as a result. The fact that I can't ever realistically be rid of a persistent damage condition and consequently very likely take maximum damage from the "stacking" means the conditions are far more deadly than intended.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 ?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.
It is not in any way harder than getting rid through flat checks of several differently typed persistent damage conditions.
As for the maximum damage, I do not get your point. If you lose the 6d6 above thanks to a flat check, it goes away completely, so the maximum damage is now 12 and not 36.
And if you meet the requirements for getting rid of the condition, you lose all...
But it is. One roll per type. One success removes that given type from being rolled again. It's as simple as simple can be.
Whereas if you have the highest D6 from a 6D6 roll, even succeeding flat checks means you are still having the highest D6 from the D6 roll pool unless you succeed all 6 flat checks. Which takes time and is extremely painful. It becomes harder to remove a single condition when affected multiple times, which makes no sense when we consider the rules do go out of their way numerous times to state that multiple identical conditions (Persistent Bleed, in this case) do not stack. This is why I use the TGTBT clause. Because players with Wounding weapons would never ever be permitted that benefit from a GM.
It also creates a paradox where you are comparing 1D6 to 1D6 and stating one 1D6 is greater than another 1D6 even though they are both identically calculated and probability trialed evenly, but are taking the "higher" due to actual probability trial results. I'm pretty sure the persistent damage conditions do not take actual trial probabilities into account, merely the trial possibilities.
|
|
Can we go back to the original question and discuss how to handle multiple persistent damages of the same type in a single strike?
Rogue with Swashbuckler dedication, critical hit a a Bleeding Finisher with a Wounding Knife, apply bloody debilitaion.
Bleeding Finisher = 1d6 bleed, critical = 2d6 bleed
Wounding Rune = 1d6 bleed, critical 1d12 bleed
Knife = critical 1d6 bleed
Bloody Debilitation = 3d6 bleed, critical = 6d6 bleedTotal = 9d6+1d12
I don't think anyone is taking the stance that you would add all of them together. That is the stacking of conditions that the rules explicitly forbid.
The Raven Black is saying that you would roll each of those values that would apply (2d6, 1d12, 1d6, and 6d6) and then the target takes the highest of the rolled amounts. (which would probably be from the 6d6 critical of Bloody Debilitation)
Most of the rest of us are saying that you would get the 6d6 bleed because it is the highest value. The rest would be redundant and would not apply.
Its also complete ignore how damage works and untyped values are calculated when resolving damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its also complete ignore how damage works and untyped values are calculated when resolving damage.
If you successfully Strike three times in a round, all three Strikes do their damage separately.
If you Flurry of Blows and succeed at both strikes, you add the damage together before applying it - because that is what the rules say to do.
If you have a weapon with a rune that adds elemental damage, you deal both the weapon damage and the elemental damage.
But applying persistent damage is not the same. Applying persistent damage doesn't actually deal any damage at the time it is applied. All it does is add the condition to the target. And conditions don't stack. If multiple instances of the same condition are applied to a target, only one of them takes effect - the one with the highest value (however that is determined). After you decide which condition has the highest value, then you apply its effect. For persistent damage, its effect is to deal the damage. So only one instance of damage is applied to the target.
-------
There is also the question of how to handle ending persistent damage when multiple instances of the same type are applied.
I agree with The Raven Black that those additional instances do still exist on the target. Only one of them is in effect at any one turn, but the others are still there.
The two options that I see are:
1) succeeding at the flat check to remove the persistent damage of that type removes all instances of that type. (makes the most sense for persistent fire damage or other elemental damage types)
2) you get to roll a flat check for each instance of the persistent damage at the end of your turn even though you only take the damage from the highest one. Succeeding at one of them removes that instance, but not the others. (makes the most sense for bleed damage)
I had thought that there was a rule somewhere saying that option 1 was correct, but I can't currently find it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The formula you propose, with the final step of Pick one, is definitely an efficient solution. It is also definitely a houserule.
Absolutely, because there is no specific rule for deciding which is higher 1d12 or 2d6.
Its also complete ignore how damage works and untyped values are calculated when resolving damage.Can we go back to the original question and discuss how to handle multiple persistent damages of the same type in a single strike?
Rogue with Swashbuckler dedication, critical hit a a Bleeding Finisher with a Wounding Knife, apply bloody debilitaion.
Bleeding Finisher = 1d6 bleed, critical = 2d6 bleed
Wounding Rune = 1d6 bleed, critical 1d12 bleed
Knife = critical 1d6 bleed
Bloody Debilitation = 3d6 bleed, critical = 6d6 bleedTotal = 9d6+1d12
I don't think anyone is taking the stance that you would add all of them together. That is the stacking of conditions that the rules explicitly forbid.
The Raven Black is saying that you would roll each of those values that would apply (2d6, 1d12, 1d6, and 6d6) and then the target takes the highest of the rolled amounts. (which would probably be from the 6d6 critical of Bloody Debilitation)
Most of the rest of us are saying that you would get the 6d6 bleed because it is the highest value. The rest would be redundant and would not apply.
It does ignore how damage works because it isn't damage yet. Inflicting 2d6 persistent bleed damage + 1d12 persistent bleed damage + 1d6 persistent bleed damage + 6d6 persistent bleed damage, are each separate iterations of inflicting a condition. It is not damage yet.
Thus, because you cannot be affected by multiple iterations of persistent damage with the same damage type, you compare which of the ?d? values are higher and then that is what remains.
The others do not linger in the target because that would mean that multiple persistent damage conditions of the same type were affecting the target which is specifically called out as against RAW.
The formula you propose, with the final step of Pick one, is definitely an efficient solution. It is also definitely a houserule.Absolutely, because there is no specific rule for deciding which is higher 1d12 or 2d6.
It could only be called a houserule because there is no explicit rule stating which value is higher in the case of rolled values.
There is no question how it is supposed to work when a creature is affected by frightened 3 and frightened 1. Or even 4 persistent fire damage and 7 persistent fire damage. Only one of those conditions of the same type apply. The rest are inactive.
The others do not linger in the target because that would mean that multiple persistent damage conditions of the same type were affecting the target which is specifically called out as against RAW.
The other conditions do still linger on the target - they just don't affect the target. Otherwise the rule about conditions with longer durations still being tracked wouldn't make any sense. Also the rule says that conditions with values are separate conditions.
-----
In fact, now that I look at the rules for redundant conditions again, this may be how to deal with the ending of persistent damage.
If something reduces the condition value, it reduces it for all conditions of that name affecting you.
Succeeding at the flat check to remove persistent damage could be considered as reducing the value of the persistent damage to 0. Which would be applied to all instances of the persistent damage of that type.
|
|
It does ignore how damage works because it isn't damage yet. Inflicting 2d6 persistent bleed damage + 1d12 persistent bleed damage + 1d6 persistent bleed damage + 6d6 persistent bleed damage, are each separate iterations of inflicting a condition. It is not damage yet.Thus, because you cannot be affected by multiple iterations of persistent damage with the same damage type, you compare which of the ?d? values are higher and then that is what remains.
The others do not linger in the target because that would mean that multiple persistent damage conditions...
If it isnt how it could be doubled in a critical hit like the example in the splash trait?
"Source" is not a defined game term, you are assuming the the rune damage and the knife weapon specialization are different sources and ignoring that the strike damage is a valid "source" too.
Persistent damage is both a condition and damage, and must follow both rules.
Since its damage, its doubled in a critical hit ( unless otherwise stated like the Wounding rune ), you must follow the damage rules to calc how much it is, since its untyped you must sum everything before apply.
The key difference, is when you would apply the damage, you apply it as a condition and follow condition rules like "dont stack", damage at the end of the turn, etc...
So, if in a single strike, therefore a single source, does (1d6 knife critical specialization + 1d12 wounding rune) damage you apply (1d6+1d12) persisent damage. If you strike a second time with the same type of persistent damage, you keep the bigger number, as in every other condition that has a value like multiple sources of clumsy.
The key difference is WTF source means in this context?
So, if in a single strike, therefore a single souce, does (1d6 knife critical specialization + 1d12 wounding rune) damage you apply (1d6+1d12) persisent damage.
Not quite.
The single strike would apply (1d6 persistent bleed) and (1d12 persistent bleed). Not (1d6 + 1d12) persistent bleed. Each of those conditions with a value is a separate condition.
Similar to how a dagger with a flaming rune would deal (1d4 piercing damage) and (1d6 fire damage). It applies both of them as separate damage sources as part of the same strike. In this case, because they are of different damage types, neither is redundant and both apply.
If a dagger has a Flaming rune and you get a critical hit, the critical specialization would add (1d6 persistent bleed) and (1d10 persistent fire). Because these are two different types, the conditions do not conflict and both would apply separately.
As for ordering of the rolled values, perhaps The Raven Black and Mathmuse are right. The only way to determine which is the higher value is to roll them. However, the time that the roll would need to be done is when the condition is applied. So if you would apply a persistent damage of the same type, have a roll-off between all of the contenders. The intent isn't to actually deal damage, but to determine which is the higher value. Once that is determined, the winner of the roll-off becomes the active persistent damage condition and is used until the persistent damage is removed or another application of persistent damage is applied - in which case we would run another roll-off. That would be the closest RAW ruling that I can come up with.
Now I need to go see about getting my tongue surgically removed from my cheek.
|
|
In fact, now that I look at the rules for redundant conditions again, this may be how to deal with the ending of persistent damage.
If something reduces the condition value, it reduces it for all conditions of that name affecting you.Succeeding at the flat check to remove persistent damage could be considered as reducing the value of the persistent damage to 0. Which would be applied to all instances of the persistent damage of that type.
In fact, I believe the rule you are looking for is : "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."
But I do not think a flat check to be an ability, which is why I think it is one flat check for each instance.
|
|
But it is. One roll per type. One success removes that given type from being rolled again. It's as simple as simple can be.
Whereas if you have the highest D6 from a 6D6 roll, even succeeding flat checks means you are still having the highest D6 from the D6 roll pool unless you succeed all 6 flat checks. Which takes time and is extremely painful. It becomes harder to remove a single condition when affected multiple times, which makes no sense when we consider the rules do go out of their way numerous times to state that multiple identical conditions (Persistent Bleed, in this case) do not stack. This is why I use the TGTBT clause. Because players with Wounding weapons would never ever be permitted that benefit from a GM.
It also creates a paradox where you are comparing 1D6 to 1D6 and stating one 1D6 is greater than another 1D6 even though they are both identically calculated and probability trialed evenly, but are taking the "higher" due to actual probability trial results. I'm pretty sure the persistent damage conditions do not take actual trial probabilities into account, merely the trial possibilities.
Excellent point about the 1 roll per type. I missed that.
So, the only way my reading does not end up Too good to be true is to consider the flat check an ability. Which means succeeding at it will eliminate all instances of the persistent damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry to sound so stubborn on this, but I really like the way it circumvents the 2d6 vs 1d12 vs 7 conundrum.
Also we are renowned for stubbornness in my original area (Brittany, west of France) and doubly so on the island my family comes from. Got to make the ancestors proud, you know.
Nothing inherently wrong with being stubborn. Tenacious but polite is fine.
My problem with circumventing the 2d6 vs 1d12 vs 7 problem is that the rules clearly say that the decision of which condition is active happens at the time that the condition is applied. You don't get to decide when damage is being applied (at the end of each of the affected character's turns) which one is higher by rolling it and finding out.
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 could use expected value. You could use minimum or maximum values. You could let the player inflicting the condition choose. You could have a roll-off. It would be nice if there were official rules ordering the dice values. But the decision needs to be made first (at the time the condition is applied) and then at the end of the afflicted character's turn that one condition gets rolled and used to deal damage.
|
|
Okay, let's break this down a little more...
When you inflict persistent damage, you are inflicting a condition. You give the target X persistent [type] damage as a condition.
Persistent damage is a condition that causes damage to recur beyond the original effect. Unlike with normal damage, when you are subject to persistent damage, you don’t take it right away. Instead, you take the specified damage at the end of your turns, after which you attempt a DC 15 flat check to see if you recover from the persistent damage. See the Conditions Appendix on pages 618–623 for the complete rules regarding the persistent damage condition.
As it is a condition, it is not additive.
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.
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 then we move to what value means. Some have pointed out that you don't have a value until it is rolled. This is incorrect. The rules actually specifically state what constitutes value when it comes to the persistent damage condition.
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.
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, while it is unsatisfying to some, 4d6 can be X. Not the rolled value from rolling 4 6-sided dice, but the 4d6 itself.
And lastly, as succeeding on a flat check would remove all iterations of a specific type of persistent damage and you can only be affected by 1 type of persistent damage of a specific damage type at a time and the prerolled values like 4d6 are what is compared when determining which value is higher, there is no sense it holding on to multiple iterations of a specific damage type.
|
|
Sorry to sound so stubborn on this, but I really like the way it circumvents the 2d6 vs 1d12 vs 7 conundrum.
Also we are renowned for stubbornness in my original area (Brittany, west of France) and doubly so on the island my family comes from. Got to make the ancestors proud, you know.
Nothing inherently wrong with being stubborn. Tenacious but polite is fine.
My problem with circumventing the 2d6 vs 1d12 vs 7 problem is that the rules clearly say that the decision of which condition is active happens at the time that the condition is applied. You don't get to decide when damage is being applied (at the end of each of the affected character's turns) which one is higher by rolling it and finding out.
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 could use expected value. You could use minimum or maximum values. You could let the player inflicting the condition choose. You could have a roll-off. It would be nice if there were official rules ordering the dice values. But the decision needs to be made first (at the time the condition is applied) and then at the end of the afflicted character's turn that one condition gets rolled and used to deal damage.
I do not read "If you would gain" as "When you would gain". I read it as "If you have". Situation, not moment.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not read "If you would gain" as "When you would gain". I read it as "If you have". Situation, not moment.
Interesting.
I read the 'gain' as being the most important word in that phrase. To 'gain' a condition means to add that condition to the list of conditions that the character has. So that is the point (when the condition is being added) that the decision of priority is being made.
You might 'have' the multiple conditions for several rounds if your flat checks don't come up in your favor. But you won't 'gain' them again each round.
But it is. One roll per type. One success removes that given type from being rolled again. It's as simple as simple can be.
Whereas if you have the highest D6 from a 6D6 roll, even succeeding flat checks means you are still having the highest D6 from the D6 roll pool unless you succeed all 6 flat checks. Which takes time and is extremely painful. It becomes harder to remove a single condition when affected multiple times, which makes no sense when we consider the rules do go out of their way numerous times to state that multiple identical conditions (Persistent Bleed, in this case) do not stack. This is why I use the TGTBT clause. Because players with Wounding weapons would never ever be permitted that benefit from a GM.
It also creates a paradox where you are comparing 1D6 to 1D6 and stating one 1D6 is greater than another 1D6 even though they are both identically calculated and probability trialed evenly, but are taking the "higher" due to actual probability trial results. I'm pretty sure the persistent damage conditions do not take actual trial probabilities into account, merely the trial possibilities.
Excellent point about the 1 roll per type. I missed that.
So, the only way my reading does not end up Too good to be true is to consider the flat check an ability. Which means succeeding at it will eliminate all instances of the persistent damage.
To a point.
The reason it is too good to be true is because "1D6 Persistent Bleed" is a specific condition, and other instances of "1D6 Persistent Bleed" don't stack with it, or even pseudo-stack with it (which is what I felt was the "roll all dice and take highest result" dynamic was going for). In short, we're tacking on too much to the condition in ways that the rules simply don't fully support.
It gets confusing when the X value changes, since as has been brought up, 1D12 versus 2D6 is difficult to adjudicate which is superior, and the rules don't give any sort of guidance on that, but then that falls into GM FIAT territory.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nah, 2d6 is better than 1d12.
Larger Minimum - 2 v 1
Larger Average - 7 vs 6.5
Same Max - 12
Honestly this is a great way of looking at it, as Leo suggested, if one is larger in two of these fields it should be the "greater" value, especially if they are equal in the last field.
But in the end consistency is key. Make a decision or talk with your players about how they want to rule it and stick with it.
I do not read "If you would gain" as "When you would gain". I read it as "If you have". Situation, not moment.
And to be fair, the best way for you to bolster your argument would be to note that 1d6 is not an amount of damage until it is rolled.
If you would gain more than one persistent damage condition with the same damage type, the higher amount of damage overrides the lower amount.
Though that does still run into the problems with '1d6' being the value of the condition. So the rules about not having active multiple conditions with different values would still apply.
Nah, 2d6 is better than 1d12.
Larger Minimum - 2 v 1
Larger Average - 7 vs 6.5
Same Max - 12Honestly this is a great way of looking at it, as Leo suggested, if one is larger in two of these fields it should be the "greater" value, especially if they are equal in the last field.
But in the end consistency is key. Make a decision or talk with your players about how they want to rule it and stick with it.
But probabilities matter, that is the whole argument both for and against the 1D6 versus 4 paradox.
Yes, the minimum damage is objectively better, and the mean average is technically better, but the odds of rolling max damage (12) varies greatly between the two.
For 2D6, you need 2(1÷6) to receive a result of 12, which is a 1 in 36 chance of both trials having that outcome, whereas 1D12 is just a 1 in 12 chance. You have better opportunities for maximum damage by comparison, whereas 2D6 is more likely to have an average result (7).
Does the likelihood of higher (or lower) damage justify either choice? Maybe. That depends on circumstances. But at the end of the day, probability outcomes are just as important as minimums, maximums, and mean averages.
|
|
I both do and do not agree. I agree in that probabilities exist. I disagree in the overall effect at the end of the day. I do not believe there is a significant enough difference for the probabilities to be considered important. Relevant, yes. Important, no. Hence the basic three points I used earlier (min, avg, max).
It is a simple check that won't bog the game down, which I feel is more important than mathing out the probabilities of each option.
I both do and do not agree. I agree in that probabilities exist. I disagree in the overall effect at the end of the day. I do not believe there is a significant enough difference for the probabilities to be considered important. Relevant, yes. Important, no. Hence the basic three points I used earlier (min, avg, max).
It is a simple check that won't bog the game down, which I feel is more important than mathing out the probabilities of each option.
While you are not wrong probabilities should not be underestimated as it usually is (singular) high rolls that do kill people (and monsters) off early, not (rule of large numbers) average values, especially if your remaining HP is in between the average and maximum numbers or multiples thereoff. Same thing (but reverse) is true if your HP is in between the minimum and average numbers though.