saves

40 posts / 0 new
Last post
when you get a bonus to saves for a specific condition for example +2 against daze, do you get the bonus against an effect that also includes another condition? for example do you get +2 for "dazed and weakened (save ends both)"?
Yes.
Ever feel like people on these forums can't possibly understand how wrong they are? Feeling trolled? Don't get mad. Report Post.
Yes.

Can you cite a page number for this?

I can't find anything right now but I was under the impression that most bonuses to saves against particular conditions were worded something like "+X to saving throws that include the Y condition," so it generally works like you're saying, but there's no rule that specifically addresses the situation the OP talked about.  In other words, it depends on the wording of the bonus.

But please correct me if I'm wrong. 

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.”

Can you cite a page number for this?
...



What do you expect that page to say? That check bonuses that applies to certain condition will be applied to such conditions even if other conditions also holds true? Rather, if you think that bonuses won't be applied unless a chosen condition is the ONLY one existing, you need to cite a page number for that.
Can you cite a page number for this?
...



What do you expect that page to say? That check bonuses that applies to certain condition will be applied to such conditions even if other conditions also holds true? Rather, if you think that bonuses won't be applied unless a chosen condition is the ONLY one existing, you need to cite a page number for that.



If there's a rule for it I would expect it to say something like "if you have a bonus to a saving throw against one condition, it applies to all saving throws that include that condition."  I don't see that anywhere, but correct me if I'm wrong.

However, I think that whether or not this is true depends on the wording of the game element that grants the saving throw bonus.  So if it says "+X to saving throws that include the Whatever condition," then yeah, it applies to any saving throw that has Whatever in it.  If it doesn't say that, I don't see where the rules say it does.

My line of thought for this comes from how combined damage types work.  For example, if you resist 10 fire and someone deals 20 fire and thunder damage to you, your resistance doesn't apply because you don't resist both damage types.  I know damage types are not saving throws, but that's where my logic is coming from and I don't see anything in the book that says you get a saving throw bonus against a combined condition if you have a bonus to just one of those conditions.

RC page 228 does say that when two effects are followed by the notation "save ends both," they are treated as a single effect when making saving throws against them.  In that way, I could see how you would treat them the same as a combined damage type, and you'd have to have a bonus to save against both effects and take the lowest bonus.  But that's me going out on a limb, I don't know about that.

But once again, please, correct me if I'm wrong.  AFAIK, the rules are silent on this issue so stating definitively "Yes," or "No," without citing a rule is just making stuff up unless you can cite the RC, or at least an FAQ or something.

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.”

An effect that a save can end includes one of the following notations: “save ends,” “save ends both,” or “save ends all.” 

When two effects are followed by the notation “save ends both,” they are treated as a single effect when making saving throws against them. For instance, if a creature is “weakened and slowed (save ends both),” the creature makes a single saving throw against those two conditions whenever the time comes for it to make saving throws. Similarly, effects that are followed by the notation “save ends all” are treated as a single effect when saving throws are made against them.




RC 277, if you're curious.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
An effect that a save can end includes one of the following notations: “save ends,” “save ends both,” or “save ends all.” 

When two effects are followed by the notation “save ends both,” they are treated as a single effect when making saving throws against them. For instance, if a creature is “weakened and slowed (save ends both),” the creature makes a single saving throw against those two conditions whenever the time comes for it to make saving throws. Similarly, effects that are followed by the notation “save ends all” are treated as a single effect when saving throws are made against them.




RC 277, if you're curious.

Yeah, but does that mean your bonus to one of those effects applies to the whole save or does that mean that you need to have bonuses against both effects in order for it to apply to the save?  This passage doesn't address bonuses at all, it just says that "save ends both" effects are treated as one effect.  Does treating them as one effect mean that a bonus to saves against one of the conditions applies to both?  If so, where does it say that or why do you think that?  Or, like combined damage works, should it not apply unless you have a bonus against both effects?  If so, where does it say that or why do you think that?

I think people are reading stuff into the rules that just isn't addressed.  And I don't know what the RAI is for this situation.  But if bonuses to saving throws against one condition that is part of a "save ends both" condition are addressed anywhere, please cite the book and page number.

The only analog I can find for this situation is how combined damage types are treated - you have to resist both damage types in order to have resistance, even though it is treated as once instance of damage.  I know damage types are not the same thing as saving throws, though, so of course that's not a real rule, it's just the closes similar situation I can find.

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.”

Are you dazed?  Y/N

It works like all other structures like this work.  If you have a bonus to fire damage rolls, and the power has the fire keyword, then it gets the bonus.  It doesn't matter that the power may have the Arcane, Conjuration, and Fear keywords, as well.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Are you dazed?  Y/N

It works like all other structures like this work.  If you have a bonus to fire damage rolls, and the power has the fire keyword, then it gets the bonus.  It doesn't matter that the power may have the Arcane, Conjuration, and Fear keywords, as well.

Conditions are not keywords.  False analogy, it's not the same thing.  Powers that grant the Dazed condition are not "Dazed powers."   They are whatever keyword powers their keywords give them, and Dazed is not a keyword.

That's why even though I thought it might work similar to damage resistance vs. combined damage types, that's probably not right and that's not a good analogy either.

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.”

How do you even know to apply a +2 bonus to saving throw against daze effects to an effect that says "You are dazed (save ends)" ?

You're picking a particularly nihilist perspective to take, and in doing so you make the entire concept of a condition-based saving throw bonus nonfunctional.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
How do you even know to apply a +2 bonus to saving throw against daze effects to an effect that says "You are dazed (save ends)" ?

You're picking a particularly nihilist perspective to take, and in doing so you make the entire concept of a condition-based saving throw bonus nonfunctional.

First of all, this is about the rules.  Don't make "observations" about my personality or motives.  It's not relevent and doesn't bolster your argument.

Your first question is self-explanatory, no one questions that.  Your second sentence is just not true.  Saying that a bonus to saving throws against one type of condition does not apply to saving throws that include that condition PLUS another condition does not "make the entire concept of a condition-based saving throw bonus nonfunctional."  Not in the least.  That's hyperbole.

I'm just asking for a rules citation that applies here.  You gave one, which I appreciate, but I don't think it addresses the specific question we have.  I don't think there is one that applies and I think that the rules simply don't address this issue.

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.”

Rather, if you think that bonuses won't be applied unless a chosen condition is the ONLY one existing, you need to cite a page number for that.

Novacat is the one who made the ruling.  He's the one that needs to cite a page number for that otherwise it's just his opinion.  This is Rules Q&A, not Novacat's Q&A.    (No offense, Novacat, I just disagree with you.)

Also, I'm going to take this to CustServ and see what they have to say.  Maybe they'll agree with Novacat.  I just would like some form of ruling other than "I say it works this way," and CustServ rulings take precedence in the absence of other official sources.

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.”

How do you even know to apply a +2 bonus to saving throw against daze effects to an effect that says "You are dazed (save ends)" ?

You're picking a particularly nihilist perspective to take, and in doing so you make the entire concept of a condition-based saving throw bonus nonfunctional.

First of all, this is about the rules.  Don't make "observations" about my personality or motives.  It's not relevent and doesn't bolster your argument.


I'm criticizing the argument you're making, not you.

You say that we just "know" to apply the bonus:  how do we know that?  And why do we also not know to apply it to joint conditions?  You want a rules quote for one, but not the other.  Your position is inconsistent.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Also, I'm going to take this to CustServ and see what they have to say.  Maybe they'll agree with Novacat.  I just would like some form of ruling other than "I say it works this way," and CustServ rulings take precedence in the absence of other official sources.

Hahahahahahahahahah. Ahhhh.

No.
What's the count up to?

Just so that Red knows what he's getting into.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
How do you even know to apply a +2 bonus to saving throw against daze effects to an effect that says "You are dazed (save ends)" ?

You're picking a particularly nihilist perspective to take, and in doing so you make the entire concept of a condition-based saving throw bonus nonfunctional.

First of all, this is about the rules.  Don't make "observations" about my personality or motives.  It's not relevent and doesn't bolster your argument.


I'm criticizing the argument you're making, not you.

You say that we just "know" to apply the bonus:  how do we know that?  And why do we also not know to apply it to joint conditions?  You want a rules quote for one, but not the other.  Your position is inconsistent.



Please cite the page number that backs up your contention.  That's all I want and now people are starting to ridicule me.  Knock it off, now.

I don't think there's a citation that will prove it either way - I just don't see one.

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.”

Also, I'm going to take this to CustServ and see what they have to say.  Maybe they'll agree with Novacat.  I just would like some form of ruling other than "I say it works this way," and CustServ rulings take precedence in the absence of other official sources.

Hahahahahahahahahah. Ahhhh.

No.


Do you have anything to contribute or are you just going to make this personal?

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.”

Not until you cite the page number that backs up your contention.  You claim that we "just know" that a +2 bonus to saves against daze effects applies to "dazed (save ends)."  Source, please.  At this point, you're claiming that you don't need a rule to back up your contention, but I do need a rule to back up mine.  Sorry, that's not how this works.

And we're not ridiculing you, we're ridiculing CustServ.  That you have any faith in them whatsoever to give an accurate answer saddens me greatly, but it's not all that surprising since they have the veneer of legitimacy to anyone who doesn't actually track what they say (as Alcestis does).
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Not until you cite the page number that backs uo your contention.  You claim that we "just know" that a +2 bonus to saves against daze effects applies to "dazed (save ends)."  Source, please.

Okay, you keep trying to shift the burden of proof onto me.  That's not valid because I'm not making the contention, one way or the other I'm saying the rules don't address the issue.  You know I can't prove anything one way or the other because the rules simply don't address this, in my reading.  That's all I'm saying.

And we're not ridiculing you, we're ridiculing CustServ.  That you have any faith in them whatsoever to give an accurate answer saddens me greatly, but it's not all that surprising since they have the veneer of legitimacy to anyone who doesn't actually track what they say (as Alcestis does).

No, I'm being ridiculed here by the usual suspects and you know it.  And now you're patronizing me.  Why do you keep making this about me?  I asked you all not to do that.  If you can't have a discussion here without making it ad hominem, then please don't continue.

Novacat said "Yes."  He made the contention.  He, or someone else who agrees with him, needs to back that up.  I'm betting it can't be done.  I think that maybe it depends on the wording of the game element that grants the bonus, as I described earlier, but there's no general rule on it.

Now please, show me in the rules where it says that if you have a bonus to a saving throw against one condition, that bonus applies to saving throws against effects with that condition plus another condition.

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.”

Do you have anything to contribute or are you just going to make this personal?

CS is a third party company whose answers are in no way official. Which is a good thing, because out of 327 questions I personally asked them in something I like to call "The CS game" they were right 12 times. Which is to say they are wrong 96% of the time.

I did recently start a new CS game, actually. In the original you could never quote the source of a general rule that'd answer the question, because then CS would look it up. But! In the new game, I give a general rule and if they get it right (50/50) I reply with a plausible argument about how they must have misread the rule. They then change their answer to the opposite of the actual answer, so far, 100% of the time.

Which is to say if you ever get a CS ruling you don't like, just keep asking for clarifications till they say what you want to hear.

So, yeah, anyone saying CS answers are correct, reliable, or official in any way is laughable. Hence... well, my laughing.
Do you have anything to contribute or are you just going to make this personal?

CS is a third party company whose answers are in no way official. Which is a good thing, because out of 327 questions I personally asked them in something I like to call "The CS game" they were right 12 times. Which is to say they are wrong 96% of the time.

I did recently start a new CS game, actually. In the original you could never quote the source of a general rule that'd answer the question, because then CS would look it up. But! In the new game, I give a general rule and if they get it right (50/50) I reply with a plausible argument about how they must have misread the rule. They then change their answer to the opposite of the actual answer, so far, 100% of the time.

Which is to say if you ever get a CS ruling you don't like, just keep asking for clarifications till they say what you want to hear.

So, yeah, anyone saying CS answers are correct, reliable, or official in any way is laughable. Hence... well, my laughing.

  None of that is relevant to the question about bonuses to saving throws.

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.”

To address the actual question, your analogy depends on the rules for combined damage types. Conditions are not damage types, but even if a similar logic applied, a +2 bonus to STs vs, say, ongoing fire damage would still apply to a Radiant+Fire instance of ongoing damage. Combined types means all damage is both, not that Radiant+Fire is a new type of damage.

In an identical fashion, if you have a +2 to bonus to STs vs Dazed, and are Dazed+Weakened, when you make a save you ask the question "Are you making a saving throw against being dazed?" The answer is yes, bonus applies. There is no general rule for it, because none is needed. The way 4e is designed you'd need a rule that says it doesn't work that way, because things are doing what they say they do. Since no rule exists that says it doesn't work that way, it does.
when you get a bonus to saves for a specific condition for example +2 against daze, do you get the bonus against an effect that also includes another condition? for example do you get +2 for "dazed and weakened (save ends both)"?


Anclerig, it occurs to me that maybe if you had a specific situation in mind that we could make a better ruling.  Specifically, what is the wording of the game element that gives you the +2 bonus against Dazed?  My suspicion is that the wording of the bonus will tell us whether or not the bonus applies.

For example, it might say "+2 bonus to effects that include the Dazed condition."  In which case, yes, it would apply.

So did you have a specific instance in mind?

EDIT:  Unless we have a specific situation to work with, we're really just arguing hypotheticals, which is kinda pointless.

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.”

None of that is relevant to the question about bonuses to saving throws.

It is relevant to your delusion about being ridiculed, though. Seems important to help you move past that, because people who feel ridiculed are less likely to accept rational arguments. Also anyone who is in this forum and believes CS has any credibility really needs to be disabused of the notion as quickly as possible....
To address the actual question, your analogy depends on the rules for combined damage types. Conditions are not damage types, but even if a similar logic applied, a +2 bonus to STs vs, say, ongoing fire damage would still apply to a Radiant+Fire instance of ongoing damage. Combined types means all damage is both, not that Radiant+Fire is a new type of damage.

In an identical fashion, if you have a +2 to bonus to STs vs Dazed, and are Dazed+Weakened, when you make a save you ask the question "Are you making a saving throw against being dazed?" The answer is yes, bonus applies. There is no general rule for it, because none is needed. The way 4e is designed you'd need a rule that says it doesn't work that way, because things are doing what they say they do. Since no rule exists that says it doesn't work that way, it does.



On the contrary, isn't it true that if you RESIST or have IMMUNITY to a combined damage type, that your resistance or immunity doesn't work unless you resist both (or all) damage type keywords?  Could the saving throw bonus situation be an analog to this situation and not to the one you described?

Regardless, conditions are not keywords and they don't work the same so I really don't think it's a valid analogy.

And double-regardless,   if we have to resort to analogies here to get a ruling, that just furthers my argument that there is no ruling on this in any book.  The rules are silent on this issue.

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.”

To address the actual question, your analogy depends on the rules for combined damage types. Conditions are not damage types, but even if a similar logic applied, a +2 bonus to STs vs, say, ongoing fire damage would still apply to a Radiant+Fire instance of ongoing damage. Combined types means all damage is both, not that Radiant+Fire is a new type of damage.

In an identical fashion, if you have a +2 to bonus to STs vs Dazed, and are Dazed+Weakened, when you make a save you ask the question "Are you making a saving throw against being dazed?" The answer is yes, bonus applies. There is no general rule for it, because none is needed. The way 4e is designed you'd need a rule that says it doesn't work that way, because things are doing what they say they do. Since no rule exists that says it doesn't work that way, it does.



On the contrary, isn't it true that if you RESIST or have IMMUNITY to a combined damage type, that your resistance or immunity doesn't work unless you resist both (or all) damage type keywords?  Could the saving throw bonus situation be an analog to this situation and not to the one you described?


No, because the resistance/vulnerability/immunity rules have rules that say that it doesn't work, and the saving throw bonus rules don't.

The analogy fails because the rules aren't the same. 

D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
To address the actual question, your analogy depends on the rules for combined damage types. Conditions are not damage types, but even if a similar logic applied, a +2 bonus to STs vs, say, ongoing fire damage would still apply to a Radiant+Fire instance of ongoing damage. Combined types means all damage is both, not that Radiant+Fire is a new type of damage.

In an identical fashion, if you have a +2 to bonus to STs vs Dazed, and are Dazed+Weakened, when you make a save you ask the question "Are you making a saving throw against being dazed?" The answer is yes, bonus applies. There is no general rule for it, because none is needed. The way 4e is designed you'd need a rule that says it doesn't work that way, because things are doing what they say they do. Since no rule exists that says it doesn't work that way, it does.



On the contrary, isn't it true that if you RESIST or have IMMUNITY to a combined damage type, that your resistance or immunity doesn't work unless you resist both (or all) damage type keywords?  Could the saving throw bonus situation be an analog to this situation and not to the one you described?


No, because the resistance/vulnerability/immunity rules have rules that say that it doesn't work, and the saving throw bonus rules don't.

The analogy fails because the rules aren't the same. 


Well, true, BOTH analogies fail because the rules aren't the same because keywords don't work the same way conditions work.

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.”

And double-regardless,   if we have to resort to analogies here to get a ruling, that just furthers my argument that there is no ruling on this in any book.  The rules are silent on this issue.


Hence my point about a nihilist interpretation, since there also aren't any rules that tell you to apply them to a single condition.  You haven't yet explained why a bonus to saving throws against daze effects applies to "dazed (save ends)."  And yet you demand a rule explaining why a bonus to saving throws against daze effects applies to "dazed and weakened (save ends)."  You can't have it both ways.  It's a logically inconsistent position.

We're not "resorting" to analogies:  the existing rule works, despite your opinion otherwise.  The analogies are just there to convince you.  Analogies do not work as rules, you're absolutely correct - but you're not correct in demanding that there be a rule because the other side of the analogy you made has rules.  You are making a fundamental error in logic.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
On the contrary, isn't it true that if you RESIST or have IMMUNITY to a combined damage type, that your resistance or immunity doesn't work unless you resist both (or all) damage type keywords?  Could the saving throw bonus situation be an analog to this situation and not to the one you described?

Regardless, conditions are not keywords and they don't work the same so I really don't think it's a valid analogy.

And double-regardless,   if we have to resort to analogies here to get a ruling, that just furthers my argument that there is no ruling on this in any book.  The rules are silent on this issue.

Um, yes, because (as I said) it isn't a new damage type, it just means that all the damage is both types. But it is still Fire. So.. the analogy functions fine, as does the rule. Analogies are not rules, but they are often helpful in explaining things when people don't understand.

Plus it was your analogy, comparing conditions to ongoing damage. The fact that when you apply the rules correct your analogy works the opposite of the way you thought should be especially helpful in straightening out your thoughts on the matter.
And double-regardless,   if we have to resort to analogies here to get a ruling, that just furthers my argument that there is no ruling on this in any book.  The rules are silent on this issue.


Hence my point about a nihilist interpretation, since there also aren't any rules that tell you to apply them to a single condition.  You haven't yet explained why a bonus to saving throws against daze effects applies to "dazed (save ends)."  And yet you demand a rule explaining why a bonus to saving throws against daze effects applies to "dazed and weakened (save ends)."  You can't have it both ways.  It's a logically inconsistent position.

No, I think you're misinterpreting my position.

You're using the phrase "Daze effects."  There is no such thing as "Daze effects," (AFAIK).  There are effects that grant the Dazed condition.  There are also effects that grant the Dazed condition and another condition (save ends both).

When you get a bonus to that saving throw, what exactly is it granting a bonus to?  Is it granting a bonus to "Daze effects?"  Does it say that specifically?  If so, what does that mean?  Does it mean any effect that contains the Dazed condition?  Or does it mean effect that contain ONLY the Dazed condition?  And where in the book does it say that?  You can't say one way or the other, since "Daze effects" do not exist as a defined game term.  It's equating Conditions with Keywords again.

Now let's say the bonus is worded to say "+X bonus against effects that include the Dazed condition." In that case I'd have no doubt the bonus would apply to an effect that was "Dazed and Immobilized (save ends both)."  IIRC, there ARE saving throw bonus game elements like this but I can't seem to find them in the Compendium.  I may be wrong, though. 

But regardless, I think we need to examine the specific wording of the game element that grants the saving throw bonus.

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.”

Plus it was your analogy, comparing conditions to ongoing damage. The fact that when you apply the rules correct your analogy works the opposite of the way you thought should be especially helpful in straightening out your thoughts on the matter.

I admitted that analogy was probably not correct when I brought it up and again later, so whatever.  That was really just thinking aloud so I'm sorry if I gave the impression I was hinging my whole argument on that; I'm not. 

I don't see anyone "apply(ing) the rules correct(ly) here because as far as I can tell I still don't think there is any rule that addresses this issue.  Mand said "the existing rule works," and I still don't see the applicable rule because there is no rule regarding how you treat bonuses to saving throws of this type.  People keep bringing up keyword analogies and they DO NOT don't apply to a situation with conditions. 

Game elements do exactly what they say they do AND NOTHING ELSE.  What does the game element that grants the saving throw bonus say it does?

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.”

Defended Mind: You have a +2 racial bonus to saving throws against effects that daze, dominate, or stun.

Please interpret.



Also, saying you're wrong is not patronizing.  And telling people you've blocked them is against the Code of Conduct.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Defended Mind: You have a +2 racial bonus to saving throws against effects that daze, dominate, or stun.

Please interpret.



Also, saying you're wrong is not patronizing.  And telling people you've blocked them is against the Code of Conduct.


Whatever.  Take it to the ORCs if you want to go there.

But Mand12, thank you!  You have a game element here that we can try to interpret!  That is what I wanted!

In this case though, I'm uncertain.  Does "effects that daze, dominate or stun" mean one and only one of those elements or does it mean any effect that contains one or more of those conditions?  Yeah, I know I'm parsing words here but it could be interpreted either way.  So I don't know!

If I were rewording this thing, I would make it say "You have a +2 racial bonus to saving throws against effects that include the Dazed, Dominated or Stunned conditions."  That would make it perfectly clear to me that any effect that has one or more of those conditions gets the bonus.  To be honest, if I was forced to make a ruling as a DM, I would say that it should be read as I described - any effect that includes one or more of those conditions.

But that still doesn't mean there is a general rule that says that bonuses to saves against effects with a particular condition apply to saves against effects that have that condition plus others.  All that means is that I'm interpreting this particular game element that way.  The wording of the game element is key. 

How would you interpret that?  The same way, I take it?

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.”

Defended Mind: You have a +2 racial bonus to saving throws against effects that daze, dominate, or stun.

Please interpret.



Also, saying you're wrong is not patronizing.  And telling people you've blocked them is against the Code of Conduct.


Whatever.  Take it to the ORCs if you want to go there.

But Mand12, thank you!  You have a game element here that we can try to interpret!  That is what I wanted!

In this case though, I'm uncertain.  Does "effects that daze, dominate or stun" mean one and only one of those elements or does it mean any effect that contains one or more of those conditions?  Yeah, I know I'm parsing words here but it could be interpreted either way.  So I don't know!


Logical fail.  "or" has a defined function.  It's not uncertain at all, except in your apparent zeal to continue to be right.

As far as my interpretation, the one that relies on what words mean and nothing else,

"effects that daze" means effects that daze.  Is "dazed and weakened (save ends)" an effect that dazes?  If yes, then it gets +2, and there is no confusion whatsoever.  If you say otherwise, please explain how it's not an effect that dazes.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Defended Mind: You have a +2 racial bonus to saving throws against effects that daze, dominate, or stun.

Please interpret.



Also, saying you're wrong is not patronizing.  And telling people you've blocked them is against the Code of Conduct.


Whatever.  Take it to the ORCs if you want to go there.

But Mand12, thank you!  You have a game element here that we can try to interpret!  That is what I wanted!

In this case though, I'm uncertain.  Does "effects that daze, dominate or stun" mean one and only one of those elements or does it mean any effect that contains one or more of those conditions?  Yeah, I know I'm parsing words here but it could be interpreted either way.  So I don't know!


Logical fail.  "or" has a defined function.  It's not uncertain at all, except in your apparent zeal to continue to be right.

Okay, I agree with your point about "or," despite your snark, which I still don't appreciate. 

Regardless, I still don't see any general rule about this situation because there isn't one.  All I see here is how this one game element should be interpreted.  Plus a lot of bad attitude from the usual suspects, as usual.  So thank you for the discussion but I'm going to bow because I've made my point and I really don't want to talk with you or Alcestis anymore.



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.”

Wow, okay, so you finally agree that I was right, and then you insult me?

Why should I bother helping you ever again?  You posted something, insisted it was correct, were shown to be wrong, insisted it was still correct, invoked CustServ, got offended at being told that CustServ was wrong, insulted both me and Alcestis, finally accepted an argument, and now you're going to put us both on ignore while still not actually stating that your interpretation is incorrect so that people who read this thread aren't led astray?

Seriously?

But please correct me if I'm wrong. 


Apparently, you didn't mean this.  You were wrong, we corrected you, and you got mad at us for it.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
wow reading this thread had the mental visual of a group of people bashing their faces against a brick wall that started by saying "but please correct me if I'm wrong."



Another note here that I find interesting is that this is an exception based system.  Every time something works in a way that is not the general rule, there is another rule or game element that works as an exception to that rule.  So if we have the general rule, and the page number was linked earlier in the discussion.  And we don't have a rule that provides the exception.  Guess what ?  It works as the general rule says it works.  So if you have a +2 bonus vs daze, and you are dazed and weakened (save ends both) the only question to ask yourself is "Am I dazed ?" Y/N .  Yes = you get the +2 bonus.

That simple.  Going on and on about there's no rule just seemed like a needless statement, there is a rule, it's right there.  The general rule.
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

Now I remember why I don't post on the D&D boards anymore.
Ever feel like people on these forums can't possibly understand how wrong they are? Feeling trolled? Don't get mad. Report Post.
*Sigh* - - - It has been noted that the 4e rules are written in a non technical fashion, leading to some confusion.


But when i read that feat - I had to ask myself the question - does the +2 bonus apply to daze and weakened, and having to think about it - reached some conclusions and then talked to m DM, and we agreed  on how it would work. Some times we need to discuss it to reach a concensus - and sometimes the DM needs to make a call.
At least i would appreciate if the rules were written in a more tight or technical fashion  - but that is not the case.


The original question was a valid point - which seemed to have gotten into a discussion on proof. Which is always ugly, even if we use the same edition of dictionary,  the use of words always subject to different intrepetations.

The repliers gave an indication for their reasoning which I think is the best that can be asked for.


At this point I would like to thank those who take the time to answer questions - despite the negative feedback they sometimes get.  
"effects that daze" means effects that daze.  Is "dazed and weakened (save ends)" an effect that dazes?  If yes, then it gets +2


This is the most straight logical approach to it without further guidelines. 

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter