Stacking Spells

So let's say you're stacking spells. The rules say:

Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don't stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above).

Different Bonus Types: The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different types. A bonus that doesn't have a type stacks with any bonus.

Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies.

Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant: Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still active, but one has rendered the other useless in some fashion.

Multiple Mental Control Effects: Sometimes magical effects that establish mental control render each other irrelevant, such as spells that remove the subject's ability to act. Mental controls that don't remove the recipient's ability to act usually do not interfere with each other. If a creature is under the mental control of two or more creatures, it tends to obey each to the best of its ability, and to the extent of the control each effect allows. If the controlled creature receives conflicting orders simultaneously, the competing controllers must make opposed Charisma checks to determine which one the creature obeys.

Are separate instances of Protection from Energy/Energy Resistance stackable? For example, if you protect from fire with one casting, and protect from cold with another- do they stack?

If you stack multiple on-activation spells, do the effects/total uses stack? For example, if you cast Nine Lives on yourself twice, can you expend a charge from each spell 9 times, to a total of 18 times, or does your second casting negate the first casting? Does this also apply to Produce Flame and Spell Turning?

if you protect from fire with one casting, and protect from cold with another- do they stack?

if you cast Nine Lives on yourself twice, can you expend a charge from each spell 9 times, to a total of 18 times

This is heavily debated and there are two sides, each vigorously assert they are correct.

The side thinking it works fine, ignore the spell stacking rules asserting there is no relevant section.

Those that believe it doesn't work, use this:

Same Effect with Differing Results ... their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

They assert that the fire would be suppressed until the cold expires.

The same goes for the two nine lives. Once the second suppresses the first, you can use the 9 from the second. Once used, the first is no longer suppressed.

My Self wrote:

Same Effect with Differing Results ... their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

They assert that the fire would be suppressed until the cold expires.

The same goes for the two nine lives. Once the second suppresses the first, you can use the 9 from the second. Once used, the first is no longer suppressed.

But for Produce Flame- both instances of the flame could exist, no? If so, would it be dual-wieldable, or could they both appear in the same palm?

But for Produce Flame- both instances of the flame could exist, no? If so, would it be dual-wieldable, or could they both appear in the same palm?

Or it could trip on:

One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant: Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still active, but one has rendered the other useless in some fashion.

You can't have two balls in your hand to throw.

My Self wrote:

But for Produce Flame- both instances of the flame could exist, no? If so, would it be dual-wieldable, or could they both appear in the same palm?

Or it could trip on:

Quote:

One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant: Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still active, but one has rendered the other useless in some fashion.

You can't have two balls in your hand to throw.

But you could have one ball in each hand? Or does it cancel the other out?

But you could have one ball in each hand? Or does it cancel the other out?

The only rule that touches on this even tangentially would be the "One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant".

Otherwise, ask your GM as they can tell you. The rules can't tell you, as there is no direct rule saying exactly how all spells interact if cast multiple times.

Also, would you be able to cast a second spell is something to be aware of. You have flame in your hand (effectively holding a charge), that normally keeps you from casting another spell.

Obvious not explicitly called out as such, but definitely something else that could complicate things.

Also, would you be able to cast a second spell is something to be aware of. You have flame in your hand (effectively holding a charge), that normally keeps you from casting another spell.

Obvious not explicitly called out as such, but definitely something else that could complicate things.

Produce Flame is not a held charge spell, it has a duration. Using the flame to make an attack reduces the duration.

So you could, technically, cast Produce Flame, then cast Shocking Grasp next turn, or quickened in the same turn, and deliver the Xd6 electricity and the 1d6+X flame damage in a single touch attack.

Skylancer4 wrote:

Also, would you be able to cast a second spell is something to be aware of. You have flame in your hand (effectively holding a charge), that normally keeps you from casting another spell.

Obvious not explicitly called out as such, but definitely something else that could complicate things.

Produce Flame is not a held charge spell, it has a duration. Using the flame to make an attack reduces the duration.

So you could, technically, cast Produce Flame, then cast Shocking Grasp next turn, or quickened in the same turn, and deliver the Xd6 electricity and the 1d6+X flame damage in a single touch attack.

While RAW I agree, you are still holding flame in your hand with which you can make melee touch attacks. It is holding a charge in absolutely every way except name.

In games where intent is actually a consideration, instead of blind obedience to RAW, it could matter.

kinevon wrote:

Skylancer4 wrote:

Also, would you be able to cast a second spell is something to be aware of. You have flame in your hand (effectively holding a charge), that normally keeps you from casting another spell.

Obvious not explicitly called out as such, but definitely something else that could complicate things.

Produce Flame is not a held charge spell, it has a duration. Using the flame to make an attack reduces the duration.

So you could, technically, cast Produce Flame, then cast Shocking Grasp next turn, or quickened in the same turn, and deliver the Xd6 electricity and the 1d6+X flame damage in a single touch attack.

While RAW I agree, you are still holding flame in your hand with which you can make melee touch attacks. It is holding a charge in absolutely every way except name.

In games where intent is actually a consideration, instead of blind obedience to RAW, it could matter.

Held charge spells, by RAW and RAI, have a duration of instantaneous.

Shocking Grasp: Duration instantaneous
Chill Touch: Duration instantaneous

Or do you rule that Mage Armor, Stoneskin, Call Lightning, etc., all end when you cast another spell?