The Tarrasque really does not live up to it's hype. It is very possible for single level 13 charaters to defeat it if they go about it smart (I think there was a guide to that somewhere). After it's brought down to 0 all you have to do is keep carving it up and start selling Tarrasque burgers. I think someone made a home brew world where a cities' entire economy was based on the Tarrasque selling it's meat, scale claws and blood.
The stat block for the Tarrasque does not live up to its hype, I'll agree, but the point of the creature is that is just doesn't die. It keeps coming back. It's impossible to put together a stat block for a creature that is supposed to be beatable but not able to be entirely destroyed or sealed. It's the GM's job to make sure that the legend stays true. That's the whole idea.
Fire resistance is the most common resistance in the game, so fireball is weighed appropriately at 3rd level with that in mind. Whether or not changing the damage type to cold warrants a spell level increase is a matter of opinion, really. I personally wouldn't bother, it's not that big of a deal.
Dropping the components almost certainly would. I'd probably use the metamagic feats as a guideline for how much of an increase in level should be applied. Not sure if it'd be direct guideline or not, but a completely component-less spell would be a minimum of 2 levels higher for me.
The majority of the players want to play and almost always ask with down faces why we aren't playing when I announce we aren't. If none of them cared, I have no problem simply not playing, because I plenty to keep myself busy, but I don't want to brush off those that want to. I just have a gap that would have occurred regardless, so I'm hoping to try to remedy the situation before we would otherwise meet again.
I've thought about the modules, but the thing is, since there's virtually no experienced players, getting the group to move forward has been slow. If they pick up on what they should do, they do very time-wasting stuff to prepare for it, and if they miss the clues, they think they've figured it out, so they prepare for wrong stuff in the same manner anyway.
Part of it might be on me, but I've GM'd for others without that issue, so I believe it's more based on their experience.
I have a game that I started up relatively recently. It was a challenge to approach it, as only one of the five players had played Pathfinder before - and his experience wasn't much by any means (he didn't even know a feat like Weapon Finesse existed) - and only one other person had ever done tabletop stuff, but they're all my friends, and they're all geeky, so I thought it'd be fun. And it was. Was.
We haven't met for a long time, about a month or so, and we won't be able to meet for another couple of weeks because of plans already set. Why we don't meet changes from week to week, but it's usually that there's always one or more people who have decided to not show for one reason or another. The guy giving me the most problems in terms of showing up - as in, has not shown up, ignoring calls and texts - is vital the current story (he's the only dwarf in the party, and they were brought into their first dwarven mountain where they were only welcomed because of him), so it's hard to proceed without him.
At this point, I'm kind of thinking of just scraping this campaign, and coming up with something that fits better to a group that can't be relied on to show in full. This would be a more "gamist" campaign, less story focused, I think, but my other players are getting tired of not being able to play. My thoughts at this moment are some sort of military or guild or otherwise organized structure of people where missions, named whatever is appropriate, occur roughly once a week in real life, so whoever shows can go and I can just modify the numbers on the fly to fit the relative strength of the party. This idea isn't new, I don't believe, but I've never done anything like it.
Has anyone ever tried anything like this? Would it work, are there problems that arise? If not, do you have a possible solution to my situation?
Don't jump down my throat if you disagree, as this is just a passing thought, but what if instead of requiring alignment for those all of those self-set flags, the choice that flag is what direction your alignment drifts? So choosing Outlaw makes you drift towards Chaotic, Champion drifts you towards Good, etc.
I also think alignment drift should only happen if you're logging in OR logged out but also still training.
That is too many +1's, Alku Leon. I don't think we're allowed to do that.
I think that's a great topic for a blog, Mbando.
I don't want to sound like Captain Hindsight, but I've been seeing this most recent blog coming: everything that has been said has given me (and most people, based on the state of these forums) the idea that Lawful Good will be the "highest" alignment, the one that gets the most stuff, and I knew it wouldn't be handed out. You'd have to seriously restrict your options and carefully weigh choices and make decisions based on keeping your alignment. I figured once GW went into some details on the mechanics, people would freak.
I'm not saying I like what they're doing. I'm not saying I don't. Personally, I think there is far, far too much information unavailable - not that it is missing or omitted but actually still abstract at this point in the design process - for me to make judgment calls on any of the systems we've heard about.
What I will say is that if the average PFO fan who posts on these forums is correct on their assumptions about what we do know, there will be two alignments for most roleplay heavy players - the one the game has dictated their character has from the character's actions, and the one that the player sees his character having, based on the concept and most likely previous interpretations of the LvC/GvE system. The two alignments may or may not match up. That'll be a case-by-case thing.
@Vendis, Ryan was talking about killing "characters". Wights aren't characters in this context.
I understand the context. What I'm saying is that I think it's an accurate interpretation of a paladin to chase down evil, even if it is the form of a character.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Paladins are heroic adventurers who use Good and Law to fight evil and chaos as expressed primarily by outsiders, undead, monstrous creatures, aberrations and magical beasts, placing themselves into extremely dangerous situations and using the powers gifted to them by their patron deities to confront and vanquish elemental evil and chaos.
Paladins are specifically given a way to find evil and a way to crush it. They're better are fighting these creatures with evil literally permeating their essence, sure, but they're still great at fighting all kinds of evil, including characters.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Paladins should not be engaged in killing other characters except in defense of Lawful Good Settlements.
I disagree with this. I think a paladin can be played this way brilliantly. But to refer to my earlier metaphor, I think a paladin should be able to be a sword or a shield or both, if that player wants him to.
This is just me, Ryan, writing, not me Ryan the CEO of Goblinworks, and not Ryan giving directions to his game designers. So don't take any of this as anything but one persons' opinion.
Paladins are not bounty hunters. They are not sheriffs. They are not enforcers of the law. They are not Delta Force commandos.
Paladins are heroic adventurers who use Good and Law to fight evil and chaos as expressed primarily by outsiders, undead, monstrous creatures, aberrations and magical beasts, placing themselves into extremely dangerous situations and using the powers gifted to them by their patron deities to confront and vanquish elemental evil and chaos.
Paladins should not be engaged in killing other characters except in defense of Lawful Good Settlements. They should not be taking revenge for harm caused to other characters by 3rd parties.
Paladins should be standing in ancient barrows fighting wights, or issuing challenges to ogres who are terrorizing the Common Folk, or hunting and killing demonic creatures that have infiltrated civilization.
Paladins should serve as an example to others of the power and the glory that comes from living a righteous life, adhering to a rigorous code of honor, and placing oneself - one's very soul - at risk to protect the weak, defend the Realm, and upholding the tenants of the Faith.
RyanD
I reposted Ryan's completely non-official, just-from-a-random-person's-perspective response, because I want to respond to this thread about it, and not just get my response lost in the other, much larger thread.
Overall, I agree with your post, Ryan, but this part gets me:
Quote:
Paladins should not be engaged in killing other characters except in defense of Lawful Good Settlements.
I think it's perfectly fine for a paladin to seek out evil, leaving the confines of his or her settlement, leaving others to defend it, and vanquish the evil he or she finds.
Are wights who haunt ancient barrows more evil than a human who spends his every waking moment trying to kill innocents? There's a reason Lux Luthor was a bigger bad guy than Solomon Grundy - Luthor has motivation, a passion for being bad. He plans and plots and schemes. Solomon Grundy wanders around and tries kill people he finds. Definitely a menace, but is it fair or accurate to say that one is worthy of being a paladin's foe while the other isn't?
I don't know about bounties and paladins specifically. I'm just referring to the idea that paladins should be a shield instead of a sword. I say they can be one or the other or even both.
I was surprised when the pets were on the list. I had assumed they would be developed right alongside the archetypes that can use them, I had no idea they would be integrated at a different time.
Mounts and fast travel will be much more useful once there's a lot of player settlements with the fast travel upgrades (or at least in a position to purchase and build the upgrade). I don't particularly see a terrible amount of use until that happens, based on what GW has described it as, so I think getting pets ready first just makes more logical sense.
Arcane casters, in general, in my worlds us Draconic for verbal components. This is usually because I've inserted lore to recognize dragons as the source for most of the arcane magic in the world. That doesn't change the check required to know what spell is being cast.
Divine spells are usually in native tongues; a dwarf cleric will speak in Dwarven as he casts a spell, for example. Again, no change to the check required to know the spell.
I have toyed with the idea of giving maybe a +1 or +2 to the Spellcraft if they know the language it's being cast in but never implemented it.
As for command words, I usually gloss over that, same as Buri. I think it could add flavor and fun - if you've read the Eragon books, then you get all excited when you see him say brisingr, because you know someone's about to get messed up - but truth to be told, I feel like this would just fall to the wayside, as most mechanics that can have a lot of flavor built in do if they're used often.
I played in a game that had a 3.5e dragon shaman/barbarian goliath who basically was the older brother to our party's cleric, a female aasimar. The cleric started the campaign very quiet and "nice": she didn't even carry a weapon, only a shield. But any time any baddie was able to hit her, which was a feat in itself since we had a group of like 8 people, the goliath's player would describe the scene from his character's perception (stuff like "As I pull back my greataxe out of the chest cavity of the orc in front of me, blood splattering my already fouled bare arms, I hear the cry of pain from Jule. Spinning around towards the sound, I see the pair of orcs bearing down on her, and my face immediately becomes crimson with fury.") and end with a "I rage." This was got shorter and shorter until finally his response was only ever "I rage." And even that would disappear at times. We only ever played these characters until 4th level, to give you an idea of how long it lasted.
I feel like the command words would be the same. The best use would probably be for particularly dramatic events, but even that could get old.
But hey, not everyone is the same, some people might really get a kick out of it! Give it a shot, see how it goes. I'm just letting you know how a similar situation was for me.
I think because of the middleware solution GW has chosen, there will be much fewer bugs to hunt down in a more traditional alpha testing phase.
Except that they're doing a noteworthy overhaul on the server side of the Unity engine.
That's very true, but that's only one aspect of getting the game ready for Early Enrollment.
In a common alpha testing phase, it's possible to log in and have a bunch of options greyed out because they could possibly crash the game. Better programming techniques can reduce this chance, but it's almost impossible to eliminate it.
Large scale programs like MMOs are a tangled mess of code, and even with the best designers - and personally, I think GW has a pretty sweet group so far - you will have unforeseen, unavoidable bugs that will need to be worked out. The advantage of using Unity is that in addition to a lot of the base code being written, probably 95-99% of it will be bug-free.
Plus, there's the fact that graphics are better on Unity than they were on the engine GW was looking at previously (BigWorld), though the server side stuff is worse; GW has some veritable experts when it comes to server stuff.
I consider UO to be the first PvP MMO, I loved it very much.
Well considering it was the first MMO (not talking about MUD's but real MMO) then yes it was also the first PvP one too.
MUDs are MMOs. I'm not sure why you think a MUD isn't a "real MMO."
Graphics are not what define an MMO, it's all about how the game is meant to be played.
I've played MUDs that were PvP based, PvE based, party based, solo based, kingdom based, guild based, and/or story based, in worlds from anime to fantasy to science fiction to modern, with some having as few as 10 players and others having hundreds. MUDs are just as much of the essence of what a MMO is as EVE or WoW or UO or anything else is.
Fulcrum, the Tech Demo that was created with the first Kickstarter was good enough to attain the funding they needed to make the game. This Kickstarter is being used as a way of speeding of development, while making the game better at the same time.
Honestly, I am not even worried about it. I think the Kickstarter will make it. And in the (what I see as unlikely) event it doesn't, we're talking about Lisa freaking Stevens. She's a pro at this stuff; she'll have a contingency plan and then some. I want in the Early Enrollment just as bad as the next guy, but if this Kickstarter doesn't work out, there'll be other chances for us to get in.
Given the nature of what GW has said about negotiations and contracts and whatnot on their middleware, I would probably bet they are definitely using the $1500 version, maybe even bundled with a bunch of assets in Unity's developer store. I'm not sure if they would be able to purchase one version as a company or need to purchase a copy for each developer, but regardless, that cost would be lower than if they instead paid salaries long enough to generate those tools from scratch.
I think you have the right of it, Mbando. Meaningful choices is pretty much PFO in a nutshell, and there should be no settlement alignment that is the best. There should just be varied effects that are not easy to compare.
OpinionOrSatire, if you just do NOT want to PvP and refuse to partake in any activity that even might lead to it, it will be possible, but a large portion of the game will be inaccessible. You'll end up sitting in the NPC settlements where new players start and never leaving. There's not a terrible amount of information on what will be available in these settlements, but you can assume that you won't progress very far in anything without being able to get mid and high level training, and you might not see your friends that much, unless they come visit you.
There will be plenty of options to minimize the risk but not entirely eliminate it. If you join the game once there are player settlements, you can find one that doesn't allow it and nest there as a non-adventurer. There is the chance (and possibly inevitability) that the settlement might be attacked by opposing player factions, but aside from that, you should be much, much safer.
And then there were MUDs whose owners had taken out the penalties of hunger and thirst but left in the rest of the code, so you still got notified constantly. I would end up carrying food and water -just- to get rid of those dang notifications.
A Ninja, if you haven't yourself, then read over the blogs about PvP and how it'll work. Then either show them to him or explain them in simple terms. Also push that it's a sandbox MMO, instead of a theme-park MMO, as that's pretty essential for someone to shake off the "I don't like MMOs" feeling.
It is open world PvP, yes, but it won't be like any other game with open world PvP.
Your friend is entitled to his opinion, but you should try to make sure it's as educated as it can be.
@Vendis I wouldn't call Unity Open source it is more free to try (ie to get all the features you have to pay for the license.
I misspoke, both here and on the Kickstarter's comment page. I know it isn't open source, I have no idea why I wrote that. Probably the excitement in it being done in an engine I'm familiar with and the possibilities that might include.
A Ninja - if that is your real name - I can't determine from this post why he thinks what he does. Have you asked him? Most of what you've said is that he now dislikes Pathfinder because of the MMO that is based in the main setting of Pathfinder. I can see dozens of reason why someone might conclude this (though I don't agree with any of them). I'd gladly give better and more functional advice if I could, just let me know what he says about the specifics on the matter.
Triga, I initially felt very much the same way. There's actually a post somewhere lost in these forums about a little bit of a tirade I had about the whole thing, as I enjoy playing as a beta tester and have done so many times; I understand there's overhead and salaries and whatnot, but testers are literally helping build the game, so I seriously disliked the stance.
This link provides a lot of the insight that swung me. A quick and incomplete summary is that the game will not have all of the features planned, will have minimal bugs, and will mostly be used for creating the player-created content before the game can be considered ripe for release. This last part is particularly important since as a sandbox game, there won't be much else. It's definitely not for everyone - my roommate doesn't really care for world building stuff, so he doesn't intend to play at least until Open Enrollment and maybe not even then. Me, I'm the opposite - I love about 90% of the concepts set forth from GW so far, and the ones in that last 10% are simply ones I can't say I've heard enough on to decide.
Though he was a bit sarcastic in the matter, I'm of the same mind as DarkOne. I'm in the first month, but even if I joined the game, I'm not playing it to be the strongest in any given field. I've already decided once Open Enrollment begins, I'm going to try to have "goody baskets" saved up, ready for new players who do a chore for me. I'll be a veritable quest giver!
I think that would be awesome to see, and it can only really be created by having varying levels of power.
Follow the pictures at the very bottom of the Kickstarter page. They are the most accurate.
The sidebar cannot be changed once the Kickstarter begins, and all of the changes and whatnot in the text are buried. The pictures are updated correctly though.
I like the idea of using spells as optional components in building or crafting, which lead to faster and/or better buildings/crafted items. However, you have to be careful with that sort of thing.
This is something that Pathfinder (as a tabletop) does not get right: casters simply make the best crafters, especially prepared ones. There's a list of reasons why, really: some of this in the game is because there's no necessity to craft the base items (such making boots before enchanting them with spider climb), some of it is because of the Christmas tree effect at later levels, etc.
I'm not saying casters shouldn't be the best crafters, I'm saying the best crafters shouldn't have to be casters.
I think the learned behavior should reset every now and then. If it was in an escalation cycle, it simply restarts when the cycle is over.
This way, you don't hurt new players by throwing very learned monsters at them all the time, but it maintains the increasing difficulty for those trying to deal with a particular group of enemies.
@Keovar - I responded in that thread to that post.
I also like the idea of dragons having actual hoards with loot in their lairs, so that if a rogue wants to sneak in and steal stuff, they don't have to try to fight it. The dragon could still have some loot it drops (notably dragon scales/hide/bone that could be rare and valuable), so there's still plenty of reason to kill it. It could also go all Beowulf Dragon on the hex it's in if it discovers something missing.
What if NPC monsters could learn and evolve their behaviour? If a creature has a number of different attack actions, it could try some random ones along with its basic attacks, and the survival time of the creature and the amount of player damage it manages to cause could be tracked. When a new 'high score' is reached for a monster type, others of its type will adopt more of its behaviour into their default scripts, and vary from there. Over time, the system should learn to play that type of creature better.
For example, imagine a creature has options including a slow but powerful attack, a series of quick jabs, a healing power, and fleeing. One creature might power attack and jab 50% of the time each, while another might make a 75/25% split. The distribution could vary between 100/0 to 0/100, and whichever ones produce the best results would push the others closer to their distribution.
Some creatures of the type in the example may heal when they've hit 50% HP, while others might start at 75% or 25%. A similar but lower range could be set for the creature's morale breakpoint, when it flees and runs towards a safer place or others of its kind. The creatures that live the longest while producing the most player damage would again influence the rest of its type.
Programming works in collectives of collectives of collectives of data. A child collective's data may or may not be accessible by a parent collective, and the reverse is just as true; it all depends on how the program is written. In general, hiding data from any part of the program that doesn't need it is good practice (this is called encapsulation), and in this case, it makes more sense for this to be true (after all, if you kill an entire group of goblins, it's not likely that they're going to be telling the other goblins that X works better).
This would slow the rate of learned behavior, but there could be a random factor in place to keep the game from seeming too static. For example, if an orc tribe equips a scouting party all with bows, and they don't come back, the chieften could decide the next group might need a melee weapon. And if that group doesn't come back, the next gets armor. And if that one dies, the next gets a different type of ranged weapon. And so on. It results it changed behaviors without them necessarily being learned.
By allowing it to spread upwards to parent collectives automatically, the behavior would change in strange ways: if two groups of fire elementals roamed the same area, and one encountered a party with a wizard who immediately cast protection from energy (fire) and the other did not have anyone to do so, the first group might report back that their slam attack that is half fire and half physical is more effective, while the second says that their fire wave ability (that hits harder by raw numbers) is better. While this could and probably would happen if the game required a child collective to reach another collective (parent or otherwise) for the information to spread, it would be much slower and happen less often (as the second party has a greater chance of dying to the monster). This -could- result in trends of gear and buffs and even debuffs amongst the players who try to keep up to date on how a given monster type currently fights.
It's just as possible to have the monsters recognize buffs/debuffs/gear and know what stuff does and how to react, and plenty of games implement this, and this would result in an overall smarter learned behavior.
I like the idea, and while it's not terribly difficult to initially implement, it's one of those things that would generate lots of bugs, and in programming, finding and dealing with bugs can be very time consuming. I think this is more of a feature after Early Enrollment begins.
They could also maybe get a little stronger with each kill, to represent them actually being a harder foe (since they're going around killing people). This could deter sending waves of cannon fodder to increase an enemy's loot, then just owning it and collecting the heightened spoils. It probably would need a cap, but it could be high.
Actually, that would fit thematically well with the escalation that'll occur with hexes. Combining the two could have some interesting effects.
Really? You don't like the idea of a dragon running rampant off in the wilderness, killing unfortunate souls that pass by, until finally a group gets together and take it down, just to find that it had hoarded a huge pile of loot?
That's how a lot of dragon hoards get created, actually. I know I've heard of games where a party found the dragon that had wiped the previous party, and the loot was all there.
Maybe if just getting a kill simply added to the amount of gear/coinage it dropped?
My working hypothesis is that it's better to enable player anonymity than identity. There's a lot of reasons for that from immersion to privacy but it enables a level of sabotage and infiltration I think is valuable to the game.
I am super psyched about this! I've decided I will be upping my pledge closer to the 14th, simply as a thank you for all of the stuff I'm getting at my current level. I was on the fence about it, but this was simply too much.
I do have a question (maybe a request): Do you foresee players being able to see which account a character is tied to, and if you don't, do you think you could add in this functionality?
The reason I ask is my guild lightly touched on some possible future security issues recently, and spying came up quite a bit. It could be a headache for guilds to prevent moles and the like if we see they're getting maximum skill points but maybe log in every day for just an hour or so to say hello and work on crafting. It'd be nice to be able to see which characters are linked to which account.
I am working on a program that can generate a random wizard spellbook. I have only just this week started on it, but I can already do that - completely random though. Because of the way I've written it, it's mostly trivial to add in getting a certain amount of random spells. Probably before the end of tonight, it will accept a wizard level and intelligence score to generate the list, sorting it by spell level and then spell name. Nothing flashy, but it's darn useful in the right situation.
Right now, it only includes core material (CRB, APG, UM, UC, and ARG), and as I am still getting a grasp of the OGL stuff, I am hazardous to add more than that.
My intent is to release it freely once it's worth something. It's going to be a project I'm intending to work on for a while.
I would like to ask for suggestions from my fellow Pathfinders. What functionality would be useful? Anything you can think of. I appreciate any sort of ideas you have. I can expand it to work with other spell lists, so if you think you've got a good idea, let me know, I will put it on the list.
Here's what I personally have come up with to possibly add:
- Be able to pick a school and have X% amount of spells appear in the book
- Be able to pick up to two oppositional schools and have -X% amount of spells appear in the book
- Generate spells memorized for the day
Again, anything is welcome.
NOTE: I don't think this belonged in the Compatible Products From Other Publishers because I'm not a publisher, and it's not a product yet.
NOTE 2.0: A big thanks to d20pfsrd.com, as they are allowing me to use their Spell DB to get the raw spell list.
This is a great chance for the GM to apply a circumstance penalty. Knowledge checks are rolled, a -2 is applied, since the characters think it is the helm. If they make the DC still, the GM lets them know that the ability being used is the exact same as Arcane Bolt.
If the players decide the helm is a sham, then they can act accordingly, ignoring it. They might think the helm boosts or otherwise modifies the ability, and still decide sundering it is more important than simply doing damage. They might think that the helm grants Arcane Bolt uses, and again decide to sunder it instead of attacking.
All three of these situations are things that might happen logically, and the characters themselves ought to work it out. I don't think it's necessary for a GM to say exactly what's happening if a Knowledge check is high enough - just give the information as they would get. Let them decide what to do with it.
I always compare it to a Perception check in my head. Here's a good example, actually:
In the campaign in which I'm playing in, the BBEG is this extraplanar monster that ties these bags filled with organs (from humanoids and animals) to things and leaves them hanging around. Sometimes they're on doors or lampposts or trees, whatever, and they've become a sort of sign (one of many) that the BBEG is around. Last session, during watch at night, my character did a Perception check, and he saw something hanging from a tree a little ways off, that was roundish. He freaked, woke everyone up, and they crept over and inspected it. It was a beehive. The GM was just messing with us, and let our paranoia affect how we perceived the environment.
Really, a Knowledge check shouldn't be different. Just give them the basic information, and they have to work it out.
DISCLAIMER: Obviously, this isn't a one-size-fits-all solution.
Thanks much for the invite, DM Flykiller. I have a potential final change. Based on Zyphus being Mordred's new diety, should his alignment swap from LE to NE? Zyphus is NE, plus I believe NE fits more along the Sloth theme than LE.
I am creating the alias now. Currently neck deep in avatar images. I have a very particular look in mind, so I hope I find it.
I do have a reason why he has so much interest in Asmodeous and the undead.
Asmodeous is the king of contracts. He ropes people into deals where he always lands himself in a better position than the other party, and he gets more out of it than the others. However, he does this through careful planning, a lot of hard work, and also providing an infinitely vast source of resources.
Mordred sees creating and/or controlling undead as a similar thing, except he forces the undead to "sign the contract" and he never has to do anything for them, really.
However, I can't deny that I did initially pick Asmodeous because of the campaign. If I were to swap deities, which I am perfectly fine with if you want me to (especially if it'll help my chances of getting in), I would pick Zyphus (a minor deity). The back story could stay the same, change the Trickery domain to Death (some spells would need to be swapped).
I'll let you decide. Asmodeous, Zyphus, or maybe another recommendation.
My group plays with trading down actions (Standard -> Move, Move -> Swift), even allowing 3 Swifts in a single round. We don't have any balance problems. If we do, we just throw in another houserule. For example, the moment someone got access to Quicken Spell, we simply place the restriction of only one Quickened Spell a round. Problem solved.
I like it more than not doing it. It opens up all kinds of tactical gameplay that makes the game more enjoyable to us.
On the one hand, the damage isn't called out in any sort of specified way. It's not common for damage to be, but with buffs, usually a type is applied to prevent overstacking it (for example, Bear's Endurance adds an enhancement bonus to Constitution).
On the other, it's still from the same source, and the way spells usually work is overriding duration, not adding the effects together.
I would rule as a GM that it overwrites the previous spell. However, if the player fought it, I might allow to pick the best 1d6 rolled per casting to last for the most recent cast.
