Let's say I cast spider sting on an enemy. They fail on their initial saving throw and become afflicted by spider venom at stage 1. I know everyone rolls for afflictions at the end of their turn, and that spider venom has an interval of 1 round.
I figured it was simple. Enemy rolls for spider venom to go up or down on their next end of turn. Yet, no matter the initiative order, 1 round would not have passed at that point so they actually don't roll? So is it true I actually have to wait for it to go to my turn first, then the enemy rolls at end of turn after that? Essentially skipping one enemy end of turn before it rolls for the affliction to go up and down for the first time?
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Durations counting down don't require a whole round to pass. They count down when mandated in the turn structure. For instance, say you cast delay consequences when your ally got mortally hit during a foe's turn. Theoretically you'd have a whole round to heal him up and prevent the impending effects of the hit from dropping him. But if your turn was next, your spell's duration would count down and end without anyone else having a chance to act
Poisons with short stages are dangerous because after application the saves switch to the end of the victim's turn, but remember a victim might also save and shake it off just as fast or apply countermeasures during their turn. So it's not as guaranteed as your ally's fate in my example
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Its worth adding that the reason why this is done is so that its easier to track individual effects unrelated to who cast them. Ofcourse rules as written this becomes a bit wonky with reactions and durations on the same round as they are cast.
But afflictions always are rolled at the end of their turn from Step 3:End your turn. Which does give afflictions a similar behavior to frightened.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
You already roll the second save at the end of the creature's next turn, even though an entire round hasn't passed. It's for simplicity, so you don't have to keep track of who first poisoned who. It shortens the first interval, yes, but the poisoned creature still always gets a chance to act before the next save. So that's the compromise for playability.
Very similar to the frightened condition as well – it can be vastly more or less useful depending on how initiative is ordered. But having to keep track of the time in initiative when the condition was first applied would not be worth the extra fidelity.
Whew, I’m glad it’s actually ran the simple way then. Keeping track of skipping that first tick seemed like such a pain. Like frightened is a great way to look at it for me.
Thanks everyone!
Hold up. The Affliction rules don't say anything about the end of your turn at all. Given that, I think the word "affliction" in Step 3 is intended to refer to general negative effects that you save against at the end of your turn, not actual afflictions like spider venom, and the hyperlink to the Affliction rules is a mistake.
So the next save would actually be at the start of the caster's turn, as normal for durations.
In fact, that's what the Affliction rules say.
"At the end of a stage's listed interval, you must attempt a new saving throw."
So if the intervals is 1 round, you'd save when that 1 round expires, which is at the start of the user's turn.
SuperParkourio wrote: Hold up. The Affliction rules don't say anything about the end of your turn at all. Given that, I think the word "affliction" in Step 3 is intended to refer to general negative effects that you save against at the end of your turn, not actual afflictions like spider venom, and the hyperlink to the Affliction rules is a mistake.
So the next save would actually be at the start of the caster's turn, as normal for durations.
SuperParkourio wrote: In fact, that's what the Affliction rules say.
"At the end of a stage's listed interval, you must attempt a new saving throw."
So if the intervals is 1 round, you'd save when that 1 round expires, which is at the start of the user's turn.
I think you're confusing yourself, SP
Step 3: End Your Turn wrote: If you have a persistent damage condition, you take the damage at this point. After you take the damage, you can attempt the flat check to end the persistent damage. You then attempt any saving throws for ongoing afflictions. Many other conditions change at the end of your turn, such as the frightened condition decreasing in severity. These take place after you've taken any persistent damage, attempted flat checks to end the persistent damage, and attempted saves against any afflictions. So aside from conditions like frightened, and persistent damage, what "general negative effects" do you save for at the end of your turn?
No, they're quite clearly referring to the family of effects that are named "afflictions", not carelessly using it as a catch-all term for any bad effects you're suffering from
Baarogue wrote: So aside from conditions like frightened, and persistent damage, what "general negative effects" do you save for at the end of your turn? Paralyze: Critical Failure: The target is paralyzed for 4 rounds. At the end of each of its turns, it can attempt a new Will save to reduce the remaining duration by 1 round, or end it entirely on a critical success.
Dominate: Failure: You control the target. It gains the controlled condition, but it can attempt a Will save at the end of each of its turns. On a success, the spell ends.
Phantasmal Calamity: If it fails the second save, it's also stunned for 1 minute. It can attempt a new Will save at the end of each of its turns, and on a success, it disbelieves the illusion and recovers from the stunned condition.
The list is far from exhaustive.
Alternatively, the developers may have written the "afflictions" part of Step 3 before the actual affliction rules were finalized, which would explain its complete absence from the afflictions section.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
General end of turn effects is already a separate step, and they previously had text explaining that negative effects in general 'tick' at the end of the victims turn.
So the different steps currently are.
*Reduce duration of effects that last trough an number of your turns.
*Take persistent damage and affliction saves, then handle changes to conditions.
*Trigger abilities with 'your turn ends' triggers
*Resolve anything else that is specified to happen at the end of your turn
Saying that the hyperlink in AoN is a mistake is well, affliction/afflictions is one of those words which are basically never capitalized or italizised to begin with but they also clearly aren't talking about general end of turn effects due to that being it's own step.
Yes, read literally, the different rules sections contradict each other on this topic. The reasonable course of action imo is to follow the End Your Turn rules, as that solution is better for playability.
So let me get this straight. If I crit fail against Paralyze, I can choose to make the repeat save after reducing the frightened condition to lessen the penalty. But if I am afflicted with spider venom, I have to roll that first?
SuperParkourio wrote: Baarogue wrote: So aside from conditions like frightened, and persistent damage, what "general negative effects" do you save for at the end of your turn? Paralyze: Critical Failure: The target is paralyzed for 4 rounds. At the end of each of its turns, it can attempt a new Will save to reduce the remaining duration by 1 round, or end it entirely on a critical success.
Dominate: Failure: You control the target. It gains the controlled condition, but it can attempt a Will save at the end of each of its turns. On a success, the spell ends.
Phantasmal Calamity: If it fails the second save, it's also stunned for 1 minute. It can attempt a new Will save at the end of each of its turns, and on a success, it disbelieves the illusion and recovers from the stunned condition.
The list is far from exhaustive.
Alternatively, the developers may have written the "afflictions" part of Step 3 before the actual affliction rules were finalized, which would explain its complete absence from the afflictions section. these aren't "general negative effects"; they're spell effects, and fall under the final bullet point in Step 3, "Resolve anything else specified to happen at the end of your turn." So you could resolve it before spider venom since you can do each of the bullet points in any order you choose. But not if you chose to reduce frightened condition, since that occurs in the same bullet point as afflictions
so if you're suffering from frightened and spider venom AND paralyze; you could save vs paralyze, then vs spider venom, then count down your frightened OR save vs spider venom, then lower frightened, then save vs paralyze, but not drop frightened first, then save vs spider venom and paralyze
SuperParkourio wrote: So let me get this straight. If I crit fail against Paralyze, I can choose to make the repeat save after reducing the frightened condition to lessen the penalty. But if I am afflicted with spider venom, I have to roll that first? Yes, The same goes if you had a benefit that lasts until the end of you turn, such as anything that gives you a bonus to saves or resistance towards whatever persistant damage you are taking while you sustain the spell. or if you were sustaining an effect that gave you a vulnerability. Because as said.
"step3: end you turn wrote: Once you've done all the things you want to do with the actions you have available, you reach the end of your turn. Take the following steps in any order you choose. The only caveat is that one of the steps handle 4 different things and does state that those things do have an order to them.
Persistent damage taken -> Flat Check to recover from persistent -> Save vs Affliction -> changes in conditions.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Ok, but they should really update the Affliction rules to mention that the save is End of Turn. No one will know to look in Step 3 for this info.
So just to clarify...
Suppose a wasp swarm is fighting the party.
Wasp Venom wrote: (poison) Saving Throw DC 21 Fortitude; Maximum Duration 6 rounds; Stage 1 1d6 poison (1 round); Stage 2 2d6 poison and clumsy 2 (2 rounds) So Stage 1 says it lasts "1 round" (which usually means until the start of the user's turn), but it actually means "until the end of the target's turn" at which point the new save is made. And this is because Step 3: End Your Turn says that affliction saves (but not repeat saves against spells) are made at the end of your turn before ticking down frightened.
Likewise, Stage 2 says it lasts "2 rounds" (until the start of the user's 2nd turn after this one), but it actually means "through 2 of the target's turns." And at the end of that second turn, a new save is made.
Finally, the maximum duration of 6 rounds. Is that also "through 6 of the target's turns" or is it measured with the user's turns?
After the initial save everything to do with afflictions are checked and counted down at the end of the victim's turn
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Hmm... No, I'm still not convinced that Step 3 is intended to refer to the "affliction" category of harmful effects.
Step 3 wrote: If you have a persistent damage condition, you take the damage at this point. After you take the damage, you can attempt the flat check to end the persistent damage. You then attempt any saving throws for ongoing afflictions. Many other conditions change at the end of your turn, such as the frightened condition decreasing in severity. These take place after you've taken any persistent damage, attempted flat checks to end the persistent damage, and attempted saves against any afflictions. Nothing in here is overriding the duration of an affliction's stage. It is merely stating that you roll any saving throw for ongoing afflictions at the end of your turn. This is strange because most afflictions occur on a scale of minutes or even days. For such afflictions, is there any saving throw to roll for the affliction at the end of your turn? No, the stage isn't over. But what about for a 1 round effect? 1 round isn't over until the creator starts their next turn.
Stages wrote: At the end of a stage's listed interval, you must attempt a new saving throw. On a success, you reduce the stage by 1; on a critical success, you reduce the stage by 2. You are then subjected to the effects of the new stage. If the affliction's stage is ever reduced below stage 1, the affliction ends and you don't need to attempt further saves unless you're exposed to the affliction again. The affliction rules say to rely on the listed duration to determine when the stage ends and a new saving throw occurs. A duration of 1 round ends at the start of the user's next turn; a duration of 2 rounds ends at the start of the user's 2nd turn after creating the effect; etc.
I've heard the argument that this is a case of specific beats general, with the affliction rules being overridden by Step 3. But these are both general rules of mostly equal specificity, as both are about the general nature of afflictions. Each tells you when to make the save for afflictions. If anything, the affliction rules seem the more specific of the two.
And lastly, I would think having the save be end of turn would cause some unintended side effects. For instance, if just before your turn, you are afflicted with a stage that makes you off-guard for "1 round", you then make your save immediately, potentially denying all the other enemies a chance to capitalize on the condition.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Without an argument of these sideeffects existing all over the game. Such as reactions with 1 round duration that in reality just last half of a round due to the creator doing things out of turn.
I don't see two non-conflicting rules as being subject to the specific vs general. Needing to roll the save at the end of your turn after the interval has passed is not really a conflict. One states that you roll the save at certain intervals, The other states that these are rolled during your end-of-turn steps.
At the end of the interval, at the end of your turn. Is not a conflict.
In my eyes intervals of 1 round is different from durations of 1 round, Essentially being "each round" vs "one round from now".
-------------------
For the sake of argument, lets say that you are right it is a duration that needs to pass. Someone gets hit by a centipete,becoming afflicted and the 1 round plays out, You don't roll the save on your turn because the duration has not expired.
Do you roll the save at the start of the centipedes turn? Well obviously not, saves for afflictions being rolled at the end of your turn is explicitly written. The centipede can now bite you again and expose you to its poison again to take you to stage 2. Which isn't really that bad and probably expected.
Until you realize that you would not get a save or chance to reduce it that round if you fail the reexposure save. And the same happens any time the stage changes even from a cleanse affliction, The duration starts over. Again not so bad for a centipede but what about something with more poison attacks, or a poison aura/area. It very easily turns into a case where you need to succeed 2 other saves before you even get the opportunity to reduce the stage with the third, but that might also increase it.
Even then, once the victim get to make the first save thats not caused by exposure, Then the round will begin counting from the victims end of turn either way, lining up with the each round interval.
So personally treating it as each round is just alot easier than keeping track of who was poisoned when. Especially from my last session where 6PCs + companions were poisoned at 8 different points in time.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Remember, if you get poisoned by a second centipede, it combines into the same poison instance, which is why it can't possibly be tracked by the cause - the same poison could have five different causes!
NorrKnekten wrote: Do you roll the save at the start of the centipedes turn? Well obviously not, saves for afflictions being rolled at the end of your turn is explicitly written. My argument is that the use of the word "afflictions" in Step 3 is simply plain English referring to maladies, so one would roll any saving throws for any harmful effect that imposed one at the end of your turn, before reducing the frightened condition.
As for why the devs wouldn't just uses a different word...
Given that Step 3 is a more integral part of the game than the Affliction rules and was likely developed first, I suspect that this use of the word "affliction" vastly predates the Affliction rules and was never intended to refer to them, just like the word "reposition" in the Forced Movement rules vastly predates the Reposition action added in the remaster.
Ryangwy wrote: Remember, if you get poisoned by a second centipede, it combines into the same poison instance, which is why it can't possibly be tracked by the cause - the same poison could have five different causes! It would be tracked by whichever one created the effect, not whoever exacerbated it. So only the first centipede would be used to track the effect.
Super, can you find any other instance in a P2 book where they used the term affliction the way you are saying it should be read?
SuperParkourio wrote: Given that Step 3 is a more integral part of the game than the Affliction rules and was likely developed first, I suspect that this use of the word "affliction" vastly predates the Affliction rules and was never intended to refer to them The "end of turn" language in the Player Core is unchanged since the first P2 playtest book.
Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook p. 306 wrote: If you have a persistent damage condition, you take the damage at this point. You also attempt any saves for your afflictions at this time. Many other conditions change at the end of your turn, such as the frightened condition decreasing in severity. The same affliction rules existed in the playtest as well.
The P2 Affliction rules are based off the Disease and Poison rules from Pathfinder Unchained p. 139.
Pathfinder Unchained wrote: A character who is poisoned rolls a saving throw after the listed onset at the listed frequency. I think the persistence of the "affliction" wording shows that this is an intentional choice and not a case of poor wording.
I only checked 50 of the 322 results for a search for "affliction" on AoN and only in Kingmaker, a 3rd party product converted from 1e, was it used to refer to a variety of conditions that an army could suffer from
Someone want to check the rest? I'm p confident any current book using the word "affliction" MEANS Affliction
Considering we have a pretty good track record of how the rules have looked even before the release from previous playtest content, With discussions leading up to the release both in terms of paizo live and archived forum posts. And that the devs took further steps in the release to clarify that any general end of turn effects is in addition to effects that lasts until the end of your turn, effects that lasts through a number of you turns and afflictions/persistent damage.
Between that and with some of the lead designers running games infront of a youtube audience its going to be pretty hard to make any convincing claims about the devs and writers using the word "afflictions" to not actually refer to afflictions here.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
If there's footage of the developers playing the game and rolling for afflictions at the end of their turns, I'd certainly like to see it.
I'll concede that "affliction" probably means affliction, but it's possible they changed plans on how to handle afflictions shortly before the first playtest book was published.
But there's another thing that makes me suspicious of the mention of afflictions in Step 3.
This one substep prescribes the order of four things: persistent damage rolled, then persistent damage flat check, then affliction saves, then finally conditions that changed at the end of your turn like frightened.
Of these four things, three explicitly state in the rules they come from that they happen at the end of your turn. Step 3 is merely pointing to these rules to demonstrate the order of operations. The only outlier is affliction saves. According to Afflictions, your save occurs when the stage's listed interval ends, regardless of whether the interval is 1 round or 1 hour. Step 3 is the only thing even suggesting that affliction saves occur at the end of your turn, like a reminder of a rule that no longer exists.
Don't point to the age of this text as evidence that it must be correct. We all remember how long it took the devs to fix the "reminder" to increase your dying value by your wounded value every time you get attacked while dying. It's entirely possible this has eluded the devs for years.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I think SuperParkorio has a point.
Suppose an enemy hit you with two poisons, one which has an interval of 1 minute and one with an interval of 1 round.
You wouldn't insist that the 1-minute poison triggers again at the end of your next turn, and your turn after that, and the one after that, because then clearly you're not getting the poison ticking in 1-minute intervals.
But there's no language there saying 1-round poisons should get different interpretation from 1-minute poisons.
I think it makes more sense to decide that the mention of afflictions there is vestigial, from an aborted attempt to make the timings of all things work the same, which turned out to be not really possible. I mean, most negative spells will still end at the start of the caster's turn when their duration expires. So a very large category of bad things aren't going to end on the victim's turn anyway.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I feel like this exact question has been brought up several times before.
Would be super cool to get dev clarification.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Ascalaphus wrote: Suppose an enemy hit you with two poisons, one which has an interval of 1 minute and one with an interval of 1 round.
You wouldn't insist that the 1-minute poison triggers again at the end of your next turn, and your turn after that, and the one after that, because then clearly you're not getting the poison ticking in 1-minute intervals
And no one is suggesting that, What people are saying is that you roll saves at the end of your turn matching the frequency intervall of the poison's stage. And we know the game does not use 1 round as an absolute unit of time. If I tell you a duration lasts through 10 turns or 10 rounds. Both are technically a minute and absolutely do follow the convention that benefits generally end at the start of turn of the one who caused it, and drawbacks generally end at the victims end of turn. An intention that is mentioned in a few places, including the rules for durations.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
SuperParkourio wrote: If there's footage of the developers playing the game and rolling for afflictions at the end of their turns, I'd certainly like to see it.
I'll concede that "affliction" probably means affliction, but it's possible they changed plans on how to handle afflictions shortly before the first playtest book was published.
Sure thing, Youtube transcripts really does come in handy where one can find certain mentions in their otherwise 3 hour videos.
But in Knights of Everflame: S2E2; The party is fighting a chuul, With omelette Paralyzed by the chuuls venom (single stage, 1 round interval). Once it goes back to Omelette's turn Jason says Quote: Omelette, You lose you turn. At the end of your turn, give me another fortitude save to see if you are still paralyzed. Once it goes back to Ikyulys who was poisoned that same round he repeats the same thing, Even stating that since the save happens at the end of their turn the character doesn't gain any actions.
NorrKnekten wrote:
And no one is suggesting that, What people are saying is that you roll saves at the end of your turn matching the frequency intervall of the poison's stage. And we know the game does not use 1 round as an absolute unit of time. If I tell you a duration lasts through 10 turns or 10 rounds. Both are technically a minute and absolutely do follow the convention that benefits generally end at the start of turn of the one who caused it, and drawbacks generally end at the victims end of turn. An intention that is mentioned in a few places, including the rules for durations.
Detrimental effects often last through a number of the target's turns, but not always. And the stage intervals of the afflictions that would be rolled each round are typically listed as "1 round" or "2 rounds," which should mean they are not an example of such detrimental effects.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Ectar wrote: I feel like this exact question has been brought up several times before. It definitely has, and I think that's because the way it works RAW (it ticks on the turn of the creature with the affliction even if it was only just put up) feels gamey and the weird outcomes it can create causes it to not make sense to some of us.
If something says "it lasts a round", the natural inclination is to have it last a round. That would mean it should tick at the same initiative point where it went up because at that point it's been a round. It not doing that leads to some weird interactions, like Delay Consequence and how it's "1 round" duration can end on literally the next turn in the combat if that happens to be the caster.
People run into that, go "that can't be how the rules work", and then ask the question. It is how the rules work, but it feels wrong.
Personally I just ignore the rules in this case and run it the way that makes more sense to me, which is "if it went up on Initiative count 15, next round at initiative 15 is when it's been a round." That does require tracking that, but I vastly prefer that to "1 round duration is somewhere in length between every single creature in the combat taking a turn and literally the next person in the combat's turn starting".
YMMV.
Quote: Would be super cool to get dev clarification. Yeah, there's a whole list of stuff where we'd love that treatment.
NorrKnekten wrote: SuperParkourio wrote: If there's footage of the developers playing the game and rolling for afflictions at the end of their turns, I'd certainly like to see it.
I'll concede that "affliction" probably means affliction, but it's possible they changed plans on how to handle afflictions shortly before the first playtest book was published.
Sure thing, Youtube transcripts really does come in handy where one can find certain mentions in their otherwise 3 hour videos.
But in Knights of Everflame: S2E2; The party is fighting a chuul, With omelette Paralyzed by the chuuls venom (single stage, 1 round interval). Once it goes back to Omelette's turn Jason says Quote: Omelette, You lose you turn. At the end of your turn, give me another fortitude save to see if you are still paralyzed. Once it goes back to Ikyulys who was poisoned that same round he repeats the same thing, Even stating that since the save happens at the end of their turn the character doesn't gain any actions.
Well crud.
So that's it? This one part of Step 3 that says to save against afflictions at the end of your turn is the only correct rule here? It's the Affliction rules and every specific listed interval for round-by-round afflictions that are wrong?
As an aside, the chuul poison looks really difficult to get rid of. Even if you save against it (whether at the end of your turn or the start of the chuul's turn), you'll just be exposed to it again at the start of the chuul's turn. No matter what, you need to succeed twice in a row.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
As I said before, This is hardly a conflict in rules, it has the exact same behavior as in 1e if I recall. You save for poisons on your turn, at the interval listed in the poison's stage.
SuperParkourio wrote: Ryangwy wrote: Remember, if you get poisoned by a second centipede, it combines into the same poison instance, which is why it can't possibly be tracked by the cause - the same poison could have five different causes! It would be tracked by whichever one created the effect, not whoever exacerbated it. So only the first centipede would be used to track the effect. Well, then you've (again) created the same situation of 'depending on when in the battle the second centipede attacks (or the first one used a reaction or w.e.) it has very different effects' that was your argument against counting it at end of the sufferer's turn. So either that doesn't actually matter, it's fine that under certain circumstances 1 stage of a round duration poison isn't actually a round, or it does but then your take also doesn't work.
NorrKnekten wrote: As I said before, This is hardly a conflict in rules, it has the exact same behavior as in 1e if I recall. You save for poisons on your turn, at the interval listed in the poison's stage. That is the conflict. If the interval is 1 round, that means until the start of the user's next turn, so that's when the stage should end, which means that's when the new save should happen.
Step 3 conflicts with this by claiming that the saving throws actually occur at the end of your turn, notably without claiming that the stage ends when your turn ends. Saving at the end of your turn means you are not saving at the end of the interval.
Ryangwy wrote: SuperParkourio wrote: Ryangwy wrote: Remember, if you get poisoned by a second centipede, it combines into the same poison instance, which is why it can't possibly be tracked by the cause - the same poison could have five different causes! It would be tracked by whichever one created the effect, not whoever exacerbated it. So only the first centipede would be used to track the effect. Well, then you've (again) created the same situation of 'depending on when in the battle the second centipede attacks (or the first one used a reaction or w.e.) it has very different effects' that was your argument against counting it at end of the sufferer's turn. So either that doesn't actually matter, it's fine that under certain circumstances 1 stage of a round duration poison isn't actually a round, or it does but then your take also doesn't work. Interesting point, but now that gets me wondering. If you fail a save against another exposure, you are "immediately subject to the effects of the new stage", but the maximum duration is unchanged. I'm wondering what effect this has on the stage duration. I guess that duration ends immediately as the new stage begins?
If the second exposure is immediately applying the effects of Stage 2, maybe the second centipede should be used to track the stages from that point onward. That would remove the weird situation of a second exposure exacerbating the effect to off-guard then the next turn removing it with a successful save.
SuperParkourio wrote: NorrKnekten wrote: As I said before, This is hardly a conflict in rules, it has the exact same behavior as in 1e if I recall. You save for poisons on your turn, at the interval listed in the poison's stage. That is the conflict. If the interval is 1 round, that means until the start of the user's next turn, so that's when the stage should end, which means that's when the new save should happen.
Step 3 conflicts with this by claiming that the saving throws actually occur at the end of your turn, notably without claiming that the stage ends when your turn ends. Saving at the end of your turn means you are not saving at the end of the interval. I belive you are reading the part within the affliction rules as "interval" being another word for duration of the stage instead of the frequency of which you need to make additional saves, Which probably is the largest part of the confusion here and why you find these two rules conflicting despite others saying that the behavior shown in the video with Jason Bulhman is RAW.
Interval and Durations are not always synonyms and Stages do not have durations in the traditional sense, They do not end simply because you move past the interval, Nor do they by default end or repeat any of their effects should you remain as in the case of Virulent Trait. The stage only 'ends' when its changed into another stage, or the affliction itself is removed.
Ofcourse wether or not "Interval" was used purposefully to set it appart that its not a duration or if its intentioned to be a specific override general really doesn't matter in the case of having RAI.
---------
The maximum duration and what happens to the stage interval when you suffer multiple exposures is a good question, I believe you keep the original centipede for the maximum duration as that cannot accidently increase the amount of turns the victim suffers past the original 6, Or further in the case of out of turn shenanigans (Auras/reactions).
What happens to the stage interval if you somehow change stage? ... I don't think the game has a proper RAW answer for that. And so far its been so rare that I've only rarely experienced it, but not enough to matter. The game presumes you roll things end of turn if you have not rolled within the listed interval. And i've seen multiple interpretations between the save happening at the players next turn when 2 minutes into a 10-minute stage and moving to a 1-minute stage. or counting the start of the stage as a new interval.
I see what you're getting at. The interval is saying when the next save happens, not the actual duration of the stage.
But isn't it still a duration of time, even if there's no effect tied to it? The end of 2 rounds after the initial save is still neither the end of the victim's turn nor the end of the victim's following turn.
--------------------------------------------
On a perhaps less related note, I had assumed saving noncritically against a virulent affliction repeated the current stage, and then you'd make another save after the listed interval and potentially go down one stage. But now that look at it again, there's no mention of a successful save repeating the current stage. Does the next save just happen immediately?
SuperParkourio wrote: On a perhaps less related note, I had assumed saving noncritically against a virulent affliction repeated the current stage, and then you'd make another save after the listed interval and potentially go down one stage. But now that look at it again, there's no mention of a successful save repeating the current stage. Does the next save just happen immediately? Lol. Maybe that's exactly what they actually meant. Rereading the paragraph I think it's possible.
Though, (F) (S S) are clear. But what happens in case of (S F)? Repeat? As Fail?
Probably one throw, staying at the same stage and remembering success is still easier.
As written, You only suffer effects like damage and conditions that as per the FAQ "Has a way to end themselves" when you enter the stage, And there is no mention on the virulent effects actually repeating the stage, as is the case when you fail while already at the highest stage.
They could have meant that you suffer the stage again but it really isn't what is written. Most also play it as you needing to wait for the next interval to see if you go up or down in stage. But i'm not sure if you need to make two saves right then and there, or go through two intervals and succeed back to back.
-----------
SuperParkourio wrote: I see what you're getting at. The interval is saying when the next save happens, not the actual duration of the stage.
But isn't it still a duration of time, even if there's no effect tied to it?
Not quite, Its the duration of time between two events, or rather between saves. I've also managed to found that Jason, and by extention to devs, are aware since 1e that poisons are frontloaded and that saves happen before 1 round has passed, and decidedly keeps it that way from a REALLY old post that later led up to the 1e poisons FAQ. We know the affliction rules are based largely on the old 1e rules, and if the viewpoint that handling it from the victims turn is the only way to do it from a rules perspective still holds, then its easy to see why 2e inherited it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Virulent is an interesting one. Especially because it's such a rare trait! It feels like there are more feats talking about how to do better at saving throws against it, than there actually are virulent things. Nethys counts:
* 4 virulent diseases, of which 1 is from an AP.
* 13 virulent poisons: 3 from the core books, 4 from treasure vault, 6 from adventures.
I feel like the affliction duration system is a bit half-baked because they had ideas about what they were gonna do, but then in practice didn't really pursue that direction all that much. Maybe they were looking for a unified approach to spell durations, poison durations, and "anonymous owner" condition durations like Frightened, but couldn't quite manage to get them all working the same way.
Also keep in mind RPG rules are not quite like computer code. If you write some inconsistent rules and send them to the printer, they'll just print that for you. There's no formal logic proofing or compiler errors.
I also think the line about processing afflictions at the end of your turn is over-interpreted. I think it's just talking about sequencing.
Quote:
Once you've done all the things you want to do with the actions you have available, you reach the end of your turn. Take the following steps in any order you choose. Play then proceeds to the next creature in the initiative order.
* End any effects that last until the end of your turn. For example, spells with a sustained duration end at the end of your turn unless you used the Sustain a Spell action during your turn to extend them. Some effects caused by enemies might also last through a certain number of your turns, and you decrease the remaining duration by 1 during this step, ending the effect if its duration is reduced to 0.
* If you have a persistent damage condition, you take the damage at this point. After you take the damage, you can attempt the flat check to end the persistent damage. You then attempt any saving throws for ongoing afflictions. Many other conditions change at the end of your turn, such as the frightened condition decreasing in severity. These take place after you've taken any persistent damage, attempted flat checks to end the persistent damage, and attempted saves against any afflictions.
* You can use 1 free action or reaction with a trigger of “Your turn ends” or something similar.
* Resolve anything else specified to happen at the end of your turn.
Clearly you're not meant to roll a save every turn against poisons with an interval of 1 minute. But there's no difference between the phrasing of an 1-minute poison or a 1-round poison. In both cases, the affliction rules (not the end of your turn rules) talk about "durations", which are elsewhere defined as working in whole rounds.
The section here about saving against afflictions at the end of your turn should I think be read as follows:
IF you have an affliction that asks for a save at the end of your turn, THEN you do it after persistent damage but before resolving other types of conditions.
In other words, that paragraph is just talking about if you have any of those things, in what order you should do them.
Ascalaphus wrote: Clearly you're not meant to roll a save every turn against poisons with an interval of 1 minute. But there's no difference between the phrasing of an 1-minute poison or a 1-round poison. In both cases, the affliction rules (not the end of your turn rules) talk about "durations", which are elsewhere defined as working in whole rounds.
The section here about saving against afflictions at the end of your turn should I think be read as follows:
IF you have an affliction that asks for a save at the end of your turn, THEN you do it after persistent damage but before resolving other types of conditions.
In other words, that paragraph is just talking about if you have any of those things, in what order you should do them.
I again want to state that nobody is putting forth the argument of saving every turn against 1-minute interval poisons, When reading the two texts together there is nothing to suggest that. Does there even exist any afflictions which explicitly call for end of turn as part of their stage? Definately didn't exist back when it was written. Similarly the affliction rules only mention durations during the paragraphs regarding the duration of conditions and the afflictions maximum duration. But not the stages where it specifically uses the word 'Interval' which may or may not be synonymous to duration in this context.
Just to put things together, I would hardly call this reading of when you save again as overinterpretated. When the very subject of this thread occurs in play with Jason as the GM, While we have His reasoning as to why they used this behavior in the past and it becoming part of an FAQ from a another time and system where the affliction rules were truly underbaked and they tried to set down the actual behaviors once and for all. I think we can say for sure what the designers meant when they wrote the 2e affliction and end of turn rules if they themselves so far has show that this particular behavior has not changed between editions.
Because at the moment we have no better example of RAI than that, And its a behavior thats been widely accepted since the earliest playtests. However, We also know this topic is both due to and has been repeated since the relevant rules are in different places. It wouldn't take much to clarify this but much like many other things we are left waiting for errata that may never come as more important things take precedence.
Errenor wrote: SuperParkourio wrote: On a perhaps less related note, I had assumed saving noncritically against a virulent affliction repeated the current stage, and then you'd make another save after the listed interval and potentially go down one stage. But now that look at it again, there's no mention of a successful save repeating the current stage. Does the next save just happen immediately? Lol. Maybe that's exactly what they actually meant. Rereading the paragraph I think it's possible.
Though, (F) (S S) are clear. But what happens in case of (S F)? Repeat? As Fail?
Probably one throw, staying at the same stage and remembering success is still easier. But that would mean you don't take the damage again. Had you critically succeeded, you would take the damage for the reduced stage immediately, potentially making a critical success more dangerous than a success.
I'm starting to come around to the end-of-turn save interpretation again. I have to admit there are plenty of rules interactions that only make sense if that's when the save occurs.
Additionally, GM Core guidance on afflictions states that an affliction exposure can function as a simple hazard of the affliction's level. It wouldn't make sense to use the hazard's turn to track this since simple hazards don't have turns at all.
NorrKnekten wrote: As written, You only suffer effects like damage and conditions that as per the FAQ "Has a way to end themselves" when you enter the stage, And there is no mention on the virulent effects actually repeating the stage, as is the case when you fail while already at the highest stage. Maybe I don't quite understand what you mean and you don't mean that. But I'll say this: if the stage's interval passed (in any interpretation) you indisputably will get full effect of some affliction stage (same or worse for one success for virulent afflictions depending on the interpretation) on a TGTBT basis. (Unless it's stage 1->0 of course) I will ignore any logic that says otherwise as obviously false. The question is only which stage's effect you would get in case of one success for virulent afflictions, not whether you get any.
Ascalaphus wrote: The section here about saving against afflictions at the end of your turn should I think be read as follows:
IF you have an affliction that asks for a save at the end of your turn, THEN you do it after persistent damage but before resolving other types of conditions.
In other words, that paragraph is just talking about if you have any of those things, in what order you should do them.
Yeah, this I can agree to.
__
I also just make basically initiative order for afflictions. It's both more and less tracking but easier in the end and more consistent I think.
Errenor wrote: NorrKnekten wrote: As written, You only suffer effects like damage and conditions that as per the FAQ "Has a way to end themselves" when you enter the stage, And there is no mention on the virulent effects actually repeating the stage, as is the case when you fail while already at the highest stage. Maybe I don't quite understand what you mean and you don't mean that. But I'll say this: if the stage's interval passed (in any interpretation) you indisputably will get full effect of some affliction stage (same or worse for one success for virulent afflictions depending on the interpretation) on a TGTBT basis. (Unless it's stage 1->0 of course) I will ignore any logic that says otherwise as obviously false. The question is only which stage's effect you would get in case of one success for virulent afflictions, not whether you get any. No we are of the same mind there, But that certainly is a RAW reading that i've seen passed around in way to many videos and discussions. Both the "Stages" and "Damage and Conditions" sections say that you suffer it when you enter the stage. While at the same time there is no text about repeating effects should you stay on the same stage in general. There is about if you would move above the highest stage.
But much like you I believe the intention is that after you make a save you suffer the listed effects regardless. This is due to how the phrasing within the stage paragraph is written to say that you suffer the effects of the new stage after your save. But since it's written to assume that you will always be at a different stage after a save its rather ambigious.
The last line under Stages has something for being at the highest stage:
Stages wrote: If a failure or critical failure would increase the stage beyond the highest listed stage, the affliction instead repeats the effects of the highest stage. But yeah, only on failure and says nothing on repeating on any other stage.
NorrKnekten wrote: No we are of the same mind there, But that certainly is a RAW reading that i've seen passed around in way to many videos and discussions. Both the "Stages" and "Damage and Conditions" sections say that you suffer it when you enter the stage. While at the same time there is no text about repeating effects should you stay on the same stage in general. There is about if you would move above the highest stage.
But much like you I believe the intention is that after you make a save you suffer the listed effects regardless. This is due to how the phrasing within the stage paragraph is written to say that you suffer the effects of the new stage after your save. But since it's written to assume that you will always be at a different stage after a save its rather ambigious.
Ah, ok. But I don't think that's even RAW. Even RAW very much allows to reject silly rules-lawyering. And that very much is it. Because the language isn't precise. I can't even state that saying "of course you can stay on the same stage if there's nowhere else you can go" is really fixing the rules. You can enter the same stage twice so to say. But saying what exactly to do and throw for one success for virulent is fixing though as it's a bit unclear and some explicit directions would help.
Errenor wrote: Ah, ok. But I don't think that's even RAW. Even RAW very much allows to reject silly rules-lawyering. And that very much is it. Because the language isn't precise. I can't even state that saying "of course you can stay on the same stage if there's nowhere else you can go" is really fixing the rules. You can enter the same stage twice so to say. But saying what exactly to do and throw for one success for virulent is fixing though as it's a bit unclear and some explicit directions would help. The fact is that it only speaks of suffering the effects in the context of entering increasing or decreasing the stage. Anything else falls under Ambigious Rules which means table variation. Clarifying text for this can be just as you suggest, Or it could also have been expanding the example of repeating the highest stage to be more general.
|
