One Moment Till Glory vs. Afflictions

[FlySkyHigh]

"You rally your allies, carrying them from the brink of disaster to the verge of victory. Each ally in your aura can immediately attempt a new saving throw with a +2 status bonus against one ongoing negative effect or condition currently affecting them, even if that effect would not normally allow a new saving throw."

So against most things, this is fine. One time effects that go away either after a set time or a specific condition.

However, given that failing a save against an ongoing affliction could in fact make it worse, does using this risk advancing the affliction?

[Finoan]

Disclaimer: Going entirely off of the ability text as quoted.

Yeah, if they are attempting the save, then the results of the save are going to take effect. For an affliction, that means either getting better or getting worse.

Because this is a bit of an edge case - especially for afflictions that have stage durations that last hours or days instead of rounds, you could rule that One Moment Till Glory doesn't work on those at all. But the specific rule in the ability saying that they get a new save even if normally not allowed should probably override that. It is an option though.

What I wouldn't do is rule that the save gets to be attempted, but if they fail then the target doesn't progress in the affliction stages, but if they succeed then they do recover in the affliction stages. Make the ruling consistent one way or the other. Either the ability gives them the new save and everything that comes with it - or it doesn't work at all.

Even for other things, it may be possible that the new save results are critical failure - which is likely worse than whatever save results of the condition the target was previously experiencing.

[Nelzy]

Yes, i dont see why this would change the rule the when you reach a new stage of an affliction you suffer its effect.

Afflictions: Stages wrote:

"When you reach a given stage of an affliction, you are subjected to the effects listed for that stage."/quote]

[Baarogue]

That's how it would work with anything else, right? Like if you only failed against a slow spell the first time but crit failed on this bonus save you would end up worse off. Why would afflictions be an exception?

[FlySkyHigh]

Baarogue wrote:

That's how it would work with anything else, right? Like if you only failed against a slow spell the first time but crit failed on this bonus save you would end up worse off. Why would afflictions be an exception?

The issue there is that most spells don't actually present an ongoing effect, they just leave behind a lingering condition.

Take Slow as an example. The spell says they're slowed 1 for 1 minute on a failure. The Exemplar uses OMTG and the ally gets a new save against the slowed condition.

If they save, the condition goes away, this makes sense. If they fail, it doesn't. But since they're making a save against the CONDITION, rather than the effect, I'd argue that a critical failure wouldn't make it worse.

It's a weird nitpick, but this is a pretty unusual ability in the first place.

EDIT: For further clarity, this ability also creates a weird gray area regarding saves.

Using the slow example again. Lets say PC1 fails against the slow spell, he is now slowed for 1 minute. Exemplar uses OMTG. PC1 now makes the save. Is he now only slowed for 1 round? Does the slowed go away entirely?

My reading is that if someone is just saving against a condition, arguably a save makes it go away, a failure of any kind means it stays the same.

But it's always possible I'm misinterpreting something.

[Baarogue]

the slow spell's duration is "varies", meaning it doesn't execute and leave behind the condition. It persists as long as it says in the save entries, and so the extra save would be against its effect, not only the condition. Contrast this with the blindness spell, which is an instantaneous spell that leaves behind an ongoing condition. An OMTG save against the blindness condition from a blindness spell would work how you describe, but not against a slow spell's effect

Reference:

(Spell) Durations, PC1 p.302 wrote:

The duration of a spell is how long the spell effect lasts. Spells that last for more than an instant have a Duration entry. A spell might last until the start or end of a turn, for some number of rounds, for minutes, or even longer. If a spell's duration is given in rounds, the number of rounds remaining decreases by 1 at the start of each of the spellcaster's turns, ending when the duration reaches 0.

Some spells have effects that remain even after the spell's magic is gone. Any ongoing effect that isn't part of the spell's duration entry isn't magical. For instance, a spell that creates a brief, loud sound might deafen someone for a time, even permanently. This deafness couldn't be counteracted because it is not itself magical (though it might be cured by other magic, such as sound body).

[shroudb]

FlySkyHigh wrote:

Baarogue wrote:

That's how it would work with anything else, right? Like if you only failed against a slow spell the first time but crit failed on this bonus save you would end up worse off. Why would afflictions be an exception?

The issue there is that most spells don't actually present an ongoing effect, they just leave behind a lingering condition.

Take Slow as an example. The spell says they're slowed 1 for 1 minute on a failure. The Exemplar uses OMTG and the ally gets a new save against the slowed condition.

If they save, the condition goes away, this makes sense. If they fail, it doesn't. But since they're making a save against the CONDITION, rather than the effect, I'd argue that a critical failure wouldn't make it worse.

It's a weird nitpick, but this is a pretty unusual ability in the first place.

EDIT: For further clarity, this ability also creates a weird gray area regarding saves.

Using the slow example again. Lets say PC1 fails against the slow spell, he is now slowed for 1 minute. Exemplar uses OMTG. PC1 now makes the save. Is he now only slowed for 1 round? Does the slowed go away entirely?

My reading is that if someone is just saving against a condition, arguably a save makes it go away, a failure of any kind means it stays the same.

But it's always possible I'm misinterpreting something.

No, if they're crit fail the second save it's the same as critfailing the save vs the Slow, it will get worse.

Because that's the "effect" of the Slow spell they save against.

You don't get to pick, it says that you get a second save vs "an effect or condition" so if there's an effect, you save against that, if there's a standalone condition you save vs that.

[Baarogue]

Because everyone posted faster than I did the first time I didn't see Finoan's response before posting. Expanding on the idea that the OMTG save might be before the affliction progresses past the initial save; I would have the OMTG save be a repeat of the initial save in that case

[FlySkyHigh]

Aha. Okay, good points folks, appreciate the insight.