Stacking!

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hey guys,
So, I'm still confused a bit on the stacking rules of this game.
I'm good on Ongoing Damage (If it is named, it doesn't stack. If it is unnamed, it doesn't stack. If it is named and unnamed, it stacks.), but what about penalties to attack?
I have MULTIPLE people in my groups party that hand out -2 to Attacks to enemies. During their first Elite fight, they made sure to stack those debuffs good and hard. Needless to say, my Elite was attacking at -8.
Now, personally I don't mind this. They had a BLAST playing and felt accomplished taking on this dual wielding baddie. But, I am curious on the exact rules of what stacks and what does not when it comes to debuffs.

Thanks. XD 
Penalties stack unless they are from the same source.

-2 from psychic lock doesn't stack with -2 from psychic lock.

That's it.


Bonuses, have an additional rule.  Same type do not stack.
+2 power bonus doesn't stack with a +2 power bonus.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Er, a few things.

Ongoing Damage does not stack with ongoing damage of the same type, this includes untyped.  If you have ongoing 5 damage and you gain ongoing 10 damage, you now have ongoing 10 damage.  If you have ongoing 5 fire damage and you gain ongoing 10 fire and acid damage, you're going to be taking 15 damage at the start of each of your turns, because fire is not the same thing as fire and acid.

Bonuses stack as you described.  If they're typed bonuses, they do not stack with any other typed bonus, except that bonuses caused by the same named game element do not stack (you can't gain a power's untyped bonus to saving throws more than once by using the power twice, as an example).

Penalties always stack, except that penalties caused by the same named game element do not stack (you can't inflict a -4 penalty to attacks multiple times by using a power that causes a -2 penalty to attacks twice).  Everything else?  Fair game.  Which means even things like a power that causes a -2, and Psychic Lock that causes another -2 does result in a -4, because the power and Pyschic Lock aren't the same thing.

You do get some pretty high penalties, but it's likely all kosher.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
If you have ongoing 5 fire damage and you gain ongoing 10 fire and acid damage, you're going to be taking 15 damage at the start of each of your turns, because fire is not the same thing as fire and acid.

Mand is correct, but I just want to take this opportunity to be very picky, because this situation seems to come up more often in my games lately.

In this scenario where you're taking 5 ongoing fire damage and 10 ongoing fire and acid damage at the beginning of your turn, it's more accurate to say you take 5 damage and 10 damage, not 15 damage.  So the damage does "stack" in the sense that you take all of the damage but it does "not stack" in the sense that it doesn't combine into one instance of damage.

The problem is that sometimes people use the word "stack" meaning different things.

This can be very important because if you have Resist 5 All, for example, in this situation you would only end up taking 5 fire and acid damage total, because you subtract 5 from each instance of damage.  If you combined the damage and said you took 15 damage, then you would subtract 5 from that due to your resistance and instead take 10 damage (and besides, you can't really add damage from two different damage types together - would that 10 be fire or would it be fire and acid?)

So there's a difference, and I just wanted to be nitpicky and point that out.

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

Yes, that's an apt nit to pick and I should have been more clear.

5 ong fire and 10 ong fire and acid means two damage instances, one 5 one 10.

If you have vuln 2 Fire, they would both be increased to 7 and 12 respectively.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
It doesn't come up often, but the rare occasion it did, it confused me. Here's what I think I understand...

I have been given ongoing 5 fire (save ends) from Source A.
I have been given ongoing 5 fire (save ends) from Source B.

At the start of my turn, I only take 5 damage, since they are both "ongoing 5 fire," and do not stack.

My confusion:

(a) At the end of my turn, I still have to save twice, though? If I fail one save, and succeed on the other, I will take "ongoing 5 fire (save ends" because there was still a second effect?

or

(b) At the end of my turn, I make one saving throw, and succeed, because "ongoing 5 fire (save ends)" does not stack and one replaces the other when the effect occurred - similar to how temp HP functions?

58286228 wrote:
As a DM, I find it easier to just punish the players no matter what they pick, as I assume they will pick stuff that is broken. I mean, fight after fight they kill all the monsters without getting killed themselves! What sort of a game is this, anyway?

 

An insightful observation about the nature of 4e, and why it hasn't succeeded as well as other editions. (from the DDN General Discussions, 2014-05-07)

Rundell wrote:

   

Emerikol wrote:

       

Foxface wrote:

        4e was the "modern" D&D, right?  The one that had design notes that drew from more modern games, and generally appealed to those who preferred the design priorities of modern games.  I'm only speculating, but I'd hazard a guess that those same 4e players are the ones running the wide gamut of other games at Origins.

       
        D&D 4e players are pretty much by definition the players who didn't mind, and often embraced, D&D being "different".  That willingness to embrace the different might also mean they are less attached to 4e itself, and are willing to go elsewhere.

    This is a brilliant insight.  I was thinking along those lines myself.  

 

    There are so many tiny indie games that if you added them all together they would definitely rival Pathfinder.   If there were a dominant game for those people it would do better but there is no dominant game.  Until 4e, the indie people were ignored by the makers of D&D.

 

Yep. 4E was embraced by the 'system matters' crowd who love analyzing and innovating systems. That crowd had turned its back on D&D as a clunky anachronism. But with 4E, their design values were embraced and validated. 4E was D&D for system-wonks. And with support for 4E pulled, the system-wonks have moved on to other systems. The tropes and traditions of D&D never had much appeal for them anyway. Now there are other systems to learn and study. It's like boardgamegeeks - always a new system on the horizon. Why play an ancient games that's seven years old?

 

Of course, not all people who play and enjoy 4E fit that mould. I'm running a 4E campaign right now, and my long-time D&D players are enjoying it fine. But with the system-wonks decamping, the 4E players-base lost the wind in its sails.

The Same Type of Ongoing Damage: If effects deal ongoing damage of the same type, or if the damage has no type, only the higher number applies. Example: You’re taking ongoing 5 damage (no type) when a power causes you to take ongoing 10 damage. You’re now taking ongoing 10 damage, not 15.

 Identical Effects That a Save Can End: If you are subjected to identical effects that a save can end, including ongoing damage, you ignore all but one of those effects. For example, if you are dazed (save ends) and then you are attacked and again dazed (save ends), you ignore the second effect, since it is identical to the effect you are already subject to.
    You never make multiple saving throws against identical effects. You do, however, make separate saving throws against effects that aren’t identical, even if they contain the same condition. For example, dazed (save ends) and dazed and immobilized (save ends both) are not identical effects, so you must make separate saving throws against them.

    Overlapping Durations: When you are subjected to identical effects that end at different times, you ignore all the effects but the one that has the most time remaining. Effects that a save can end work differently, since you don’t know when they’re going to end. You, therefore, track effects that a save can end separately from effects that end at specific times.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
What page is that? I'd like to mark it with a tape flag so I don't get confused again.

58286228 wrote:
As a DM, I find it easier to just punish the players no matter what they pick, as I assume they will pick stuff that is broken. I mean, fight after fight they kill all the monsters without getting killed themselves! What sort of a game is this, anyway?

 

An insightful observation about the nature of 4e, and why it hasn't succeeded as well as other editions. (from the DDN General Discussions, 2014-05-07)

Rundell wrote:

   

Emerikol wrote:

       

Foxface wrote:

        4e was the "modern" D&D, right?  The one that had design notes that drew from more modern games, and generally appealed to those who preferred the design priorities of modern games.  I'm only speculating, but I'd hazard a guess that those same 4e players are the ones running the wide gamut of other games at Origins.

       
        D&D 4e players are pretty much by definition the players who didn't mind, and often embraced, D&D being "different".  That willingness to embrace the different might also mean they are less attached to 4e itself, and are willing to go elsewhere.

    This is a brilliant insight.  I was thinking along those lines myself.  

 

    There are so many tiny indie games that if you added them all together they would definitely rival Pathfinder.   If there were a dominant game for those people it would do better but there is no dominant game.  Until 4e, the indie people were ignored by the makers of D&D.

 

Yep. 4E was embraced by the 'system matters' crowd who love analyzing and innovating systems. That crowd had turned its back on D&D as a clunky anachronism. But with 4E, their design values were embraced and validated. 4E was D&D for system-wonks. And with support for 4E pulled, the system-wonks have moved on to other systems. The tropes and traditions of D&D never had much appeal for them anyway. Now there are other systems to learn and study. It's like boardgamegeeks - always a new system on the horizon. Why play an ancient games that's seven years old?

 

Of course, not all people who play and enjoy 4E fit that mould. I'm running a 4E campaign right now, and my long-time D&D players are enjoying it fine. But with the system-wonks decamping, the 4E players-base lost the wind in its sails.

What page is that? I'd like to mark it with a tape flag so I don't get confused again.



Ongoing Damage, Saving Throw & Durations                       
Rule Compendium 224-227-228                      
Player's Handbook 278-279                      

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

If you have ongoing 5 fire damage and you gain ongoing 10 fire and acid damage, you're going to be taking 15 damage at the start of each of your turns, because fire is not the same thing as fire and acid.

Mand is correct, but I just want to take this opportunity to be very picky, because this situation seems to come up more often in my games lately.

In this scenario where you're taking 5 ongoing fire damage and 10 ongoing fire and acid damage at the beginning of your turn, it's more accurate to say you take 5 damage and 10 damage, not 15 damage.  So the damage does "stack" in the sense that you take all of the damage but it does "not stack" in the sense that it doesn't combine into one instance of damage.

The problem is that sometimes people use the word "stack" meaning different things.

This can be very important because if you have Resist 5 All, for example, in this situation you would only end up taking 5 fire and acid damage total, because you subtract 5 from each instance of damage.  If you combined the damage and said you took 15 damage, then you would subtract 5 from that due to your resistance and instead take 10 damage (and besides, you can't really add damage from two different damage types together - would that 10 be fire or would it be fire and acid?)

So there's a difference, and I just wanted to be nitpicky and point that out.


Thanks.  I was "stacking" the damage and then taking off the resist.  Wink