|
10 months ago ::
Aug 22, 2012 - 12:25PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2008
|
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."
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 22, 2012 - 12:27PM
#22
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 22, 2012 - 12:27PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2008
|
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."
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 22, 2012 - 12:29PM
#24
|
|
|
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....
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 22, 2012 - 12:31PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2008
|
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."
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 22, 2012 - 12:32PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
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
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 22, 2012 - 12:36PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2008
|
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."
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 22, 2012 - 12:36PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
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
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 22, 2012 - 12:51PM
#29
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 22, 2012 - 12:59PM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2008
|
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."
|
|
|
