Hi, sorry if this has been asked before. I was wondering in what order various protections are applied.
Let's say a Wizard of the Abjuration School is targeted by a fire attack doing 30 points of damage. He gets a saving throw, he has a Protection From Energy spell with 12 points left and his he chose fire resistance 5. For sake of argument, he does make his save halving damage.
So, if you apply the protections in this order; save, spell, resistance he takes no damage but the last of his spell's protection is gone. ((30*.5)-12)-5=-2
If you apply the protections in this order; save, resistance, spell he takes no damage but his spell has 2 points left.
((30*.5)-5)-12=-2
And of course if the spell is applied first, the wizard takes 4 points of damage.
((30-12)*.5)-5=4
I think the first operation seems most correct to me, but I would like everyone's input. Thanks.
Hi, sorry if this has been asked before. I was wondering in what order various protections are applied.
Let's say a Wizard of the Abjuration School is targeted by a fire attack doing 30 points of damage. He gets a saving throw, he has a Protection From Energy spell with 12 points left and his he chose fire resistance 5. For sake of argument, he does make his save halving damage.
So, if you apply the protections in this order; save, spell, resistance he takes no damage but the last of his spell's protection is gone. ((30*.5)-12)-5=-2
If you apply the protections in this order; save, resistance, spell he takes no damage but his spell has 2 points left.
((30*.5)-5)-12=-2And of course if the spell is applied first, the wizard takes 4 points of damage.
((30-12)*.5)-5=4I think the first operation seems most correct to me, but I would like everyone's input. Thanks.
OK, our guy got a 30 pt. fire attack. For sake of convenience, let's say it's fireball. First, we check SR. If we fail to bypass that, no damage, nothing off our spells or resistances. We pass through SR (or don't have any), then we can move on to saving throws. Roll the save to determine if it's 30 or 15 pts. of damage. Then we go to your protection from energy spell. Why? It specifically states in the protection from energy spell that it doesn't stack with resist energy. Now, you have fire resistance 5, not resist energy per se, but resist energy can grant fire resistance, so there's an existing case to look at. Continuing from that idea, you made your save, so 15 damage is applied to protection from energy, which falls after absorbing 12 points. You take 3 damage. Why? Well, if we treat your fire resistance as being identical to that provided by resist energy, protection from energy overlaps resist energy and your innate resistance doesn't apply. So you're singed slightly. Your innate fire resistance would apply against further attacks that round as normal.
Mind you, this is my opinion with a quick smattering of rules-searching. If someone wants to dig up a better answer, I'd like to hear it myself.
Lathiira is completely correct.
Protection and Resistance overlap and do not stack. So:
30 Fire damage
Save for half - 15 damage
Minus greater of (12 protection absorbed/5 resisted) - 3 remaining.
But! - if the Abjurer was 6th level, his 3rd school power would kick in, and absorb the last 3 points (unless he had used it up for the day).
Our group runs the following order:
Resistances/Spells then Save.
So in your example, (30-12)/2=9 damage.
Our group runs the following order:
Resistances/Spells then Save.So in your example, (30-12)/2=9 damage.
you should really do it the other (correct) way, because resistances are meant to reduce the amount of damage taken form a given attack, and you do not know how much damage the character takes until after the saving throw.
Our group prefers the realism behind a spell being dangerous. These are magical effects that create deadly consequences. We take a more storytelling method of combat. I never said my method was correct per RAW by the way.
Our group prefers the realism behind a spell being dangerous. These are magical effects that create deadly consequences. We take a more storytelling method of combat. I never said my method was correct per RAW by the way.
Sorry, I meant to put this in the Rules forum. Did I post this in House Rules by mistake?
Our group prefers the realism behind a spell being dangerous. These are magical effects that create deadly consequences. We take a more storytelling method of combat. I never said my method was correct per RAW by the way.Sorry, I meant to put this in the Rules forum. Did I post this in House Rules by mistake?
I don't know if that was sarcasm or not, but you posted in the correct area.
|
Protection and Resistance overlap and do not stack.
Um, not exactly.
What the resist energy spell and protection from energy spells say is that they don't stack. Nowhere does it say that protection from energy doesn't stack with a creature's innate energy resistance.
AFAICT people are assuming that because RE provides something equivalent to energy resistance, and because RE doesn't stack with PfEn, that a creature's innate ER doesn't stack with PfEn either. Yet that's not in the rules anywhere; not in the spell descriptions (which don't cover a creature's innate abilities anyway), nor in the Glossary under Energy Resistance (which only says that energy resistance from spells doesn't stack with innate ER). If you read the description, you'll see that PfEn provides "temporary immunity", not energy resistance.
IMC I allow PfEn to stack with innate ER. It makes sense to me: the spell prevents N points of damage from even reaching the creature, so then the creature's innate ability can absorb what gets through. Yet the two spells don't stack because the descriptions specifically say they don't (otherwise they would be stacking as well).
Um, not exactly.
What the resist energy spell and protection from energy spells say is that they don't stack. Nowhere does it say that protection from energy doesn't stack with a creature's innate energy resistance.
AFAICT people are assuming that because RE provides something equivalent to energy resistance, and because RE doesn't stack with PfEn, that a creature's innate ER doesn't stack with PfEn either. Yet that's not in the rules anywhere; not in the spell descriptions (which don't cover a creature's innate abilities anyway), nor in the Glossary under Energy Resistance (which only says that energy resistance from spells doesn't stack with innate ER). If you read the description, you'll see that PfEn provides "temporary immunity", not energy resistance.
IMC I allow PfEn to stack with innate ER. It makes sense to me: the spell prevents N points of damage from even reaching the creature, so then the creature's innate ability can absorb what gets through. Yet the two spells don't stack because the descriptions specifically say they don't (otherwise they would be stacking as well).
This is why I tried to note that I was using resist energy as a case for stacking; I was trying to establish precedent. I think your way works fine, but since I was trying to establish a rules-based answer and as you've pointed out there isn't one, I worked with what I had. One note though: if PfEn provides temporary immunity, does it then in your game equate to having the fire or cold subtypes (if set for those energies, of course)?
The damage will first encounter the buff spells and then the actuals effects.
Does this make them buffer spells?
<ducks>
What the resist energy spell and protection from energy spells say is that they don't stack. Nowhere does it say that protection from energy doesn't stack with a creature's innate energy resistance.
I think that's about right.
I'm not sure of the intent, but the spell text is quite clear:
Resist energy overlaps (and does not stack with) protection from energy. If a character is warded by protection from energy and resist energy, the protection spell absorbs damage until its power is exhausted.
The OP mentions fire resist 5 -- which comes from the abjurer school ability resistance. This is an Ex ability that is clearly not based on the resist energy spell (neither the spell or spell-like ability). Only the resist energy spell does not stack with protection from energy based on this text. There is no mention of the universal monster ability "resistance" -- which ignores damage in a similar way to resist energy.
The intent may be not be so clear. The key term "energy resistance" appears in the spell description of resist energy, but only resist energy is mentioned in spells that do not stack with protection from energy. Whether or not it is "intended to work" is simply a matter of opinion.
So based on the assumption that energy resistance is not necessarily the resist energy spell effect, the OP's example should work like this:
30 - damage potentially taken
15 - makes save
3 - protection from energy (caster is immune to fire, but the shield breaks after taking 12 points of damage)
0 - fire resistance ignores 3 points of damage taken after the shield collapses.
I find it rather a stretch to say that a creature's natural energy resistance would stack with protection from energy, when both of those explicitly do not stack with Resist Energy either.
It's a rather general theme that energy buffers (or fluffers), do not stack with each other. It is born out in every example I know of (if perhaps not with explicit enough language). The only exception I know of is the Abjurer 6th level ability, which indicates an entirely different type of protection (energy 'absorption').
That said, the system is certainly flexible enough to handle a house rule.
The rules say they don't stack, but that they do overlap. What exactly is this overlap thing and how is it applied, then?
Edit: I've always played it that Protection runs until it's burnt out, and then Resist kicks in.
Bah, negated myself (:
from the glossary under the Energy Resistance section:
This resistance does not stack with the resistance that a spell might provide.
So, in fact, energy resistance *never* stacks with a spell -- a spell always comes first.
The rules say they don't stack, but that they do overlap. What exactly is this overlap thing and how is it applied, then?
Edit: I've always played it that Protection runs until it's burnt out, and then Resist kicks in.
I am getting something wierd.
I have Protection from Energy(Fire) and a level 7 Resist Energy(Fire).
Protection from energy overlaps (and does not stack with) resist energy. If a character is warded by protection from energy and resist energy, the protection spell absorbs damage until its power is exhausted.
Now lets say that my PFE is down to 5 points left, and I get hit with a fire spell for 25 damage. Normally, you would expect me to take 5 damage because 20 energy resist is greater than 5, but since the rules specifically state that the PFE gets used up first, I only get 5 points of reduction and will take 20 damage?
It is weird because it looks like an edge case where having both spells up actually gives you less protection.
I am getting something wierd.I have Protection from Energy(Fire) and a level 7 Resist Energy(Fire).
** spoiler omitted **
Now lets say that my PFE is down to 5 points left, and I get hit with a fire spell for 25 damage. Normally, you would expect me to take 5 damage because 20 energy resist is greater than 5, but since the rules specifically state that the PFE gets used up first, I only get 5 points of reduction and will take 20 damage?
It is weird because it looks like an edge case where having both spells up actually gives you less protection.
Precisely!
Let's go all the way with it. A 1 point remaining Protection from Energy can kill you! Why? Because it's not dismissable, and voids your energy resistance. You'd have to immolate yourself or cast Dispel Magic to rid yourself of a Protection from Energy gone bad that now makes you somewhat unprotectable from a particular energy type.
Of course, I don't subscribe to the above scenario on the grounds that it's ridiculous.
Uh... "overlap" means "the best effect applies". This was gone over with magical ability score bonuses quite a bit, back in the day.
That being said, the final line in the spell description is just.. weird.
A more interesting effect would be when you cast multiple energy resistance spells. For an example, let's say you have 60 points of protection per casting, and you cast it three times.
If you're hit by a fireball for 35 points, your protection spell absorbs it, leaving 25 remaining. However, technically this should apply only to one of the spells, thus your second protection spell with it's protection of 60 points, now, as it overlaps with the 25 points and is higher, applies to next attack you're hit with - say, 90 points. This consumes up the remainder of the spell that absorbs the damage.
I have no idea, if the remainder of damage is absorbed by the next resistance or by the character - probably by the character, or otherwise Protection is stacking with itself, which is a no-no.
Never-the-less, you still have a third protection spell remaining, which will protect you for 60 points, from the next attack. If you take between 36 and 59 points of damage, the third spell will now protect less than the first one, which has 25 points remaining, and will now come forefront.
This cannot work this way. It's the definition of stacking, you're just keeping track of 3 sets of numbers to provide a fully stacked bonus.
And the overlap between Protection and Resist specifically provides for the Protection to be used up before Resist kicks in, so the best effect may not apply in cases where remaining Protection < Resistance.
At the time that Protection is busted, the Protection spell is discharged and ended, so shouldn't the Resist spell be fine to kick in as there is no more interplay between 2 spells going on? You can argue that the instantaneous nature of the application of the attack voids a sequential follow through on the buffer spells, but the overlapping nature of these 2 spells would suggest that Protection might be encountered before Resistance.
Well it was worth a shot anyway.
The way we've always run it, both in the games I have played in, and run, is this...
Aasimar has 5 points of Acid Resistance.
Aasimar casts Resist Energy (Acid) at CL 10 (20 pts)
Aasimar casts Protection from Energy (Acid) at CL 10 (120 pts)
Aasimar is attacked by acidic breath that does 60 pts, saves for half damage. PfEn takes 30 pts of damage (90 left).
Aasimar is targeted by Acid Splash and takes 20 pts (PfEn = 70)
Aasimar is breathed on again for another 60 pts, fails save for half, PfEn takes 60 (10 pts left).
Aasimar takes another Acid Splash for 20 pts. PfEn takes off 10, remaining 10 applies against Resist Energy, nothing taken.
Aasimar is breathed on again for another 60 pts, saves for half, takes 10 pts (Resist Energy).
Resist Energy expires at this point. Aasimar takes another Acid Splash for 20 pts. The Aasimar takes 15 pts (his natural acid resistance kicks in finally).
Man, that's one unlucky Aasimar.
The way we've always run it, both in the games I have played in, and run, is this...
Aasimar has 5 points of Acid Resistance.
Aasimar casts Resist Energy (Acid) at CL 10 (20 pts)
Aasimar casts Protection from Energy (Acid) at CL 10 (120 pts)Aasimar is attacked by acidic breath that does 60 pts, saves for half damage. PfEn takes 30 pts of damage (90 left).
Aasimar is targeted by Acid Splash and takes 20 pts (PfEn = 70)
Aasimar is breathed on again for another 60 pts, fails save for half, PfEn takes 60 (10 pts left).
Aasimar takes another Acid Splash for 20 pts. PfEn takes off 10, remaining 10 applies against Resist Energy, nothing taken.
Aasimar is breathed on again for another 60 pts, saves for half, takes 10 pts (Resist Energy).
Resist Energy expires at this point. Aasimar takes another Acid Splash for 20 pts. The Aasimar takes 15 pts (his natural acid resistance kicks in finally).
Man, that's one unlucky Aasimar.
That is the sensable way to do it, but that is not following the letter of the RAW.
thats a hell of an acid splash... doesn't it normally do like 1d3 points of acid damage?
thats a hell of an acid splash... doesn't it normally do like 1d3 points of acid damage?
I did say it was one unlucky Aasimar. :)
That is the sensable way to do it, but that is not following the letter of the RAW.
That's why GMs were invented, to do the sensible thing when the rules are less than clear or don't make much sense.
No, I'm not. Unless it's explicitly ruled against, I would say I'm correct.
If you have +2 strength gauntlets, and cast bull's str, you obviously have +4 enhancement to str score. Do the gauntlets become non-magical, or does the effect stop for the duration of the spell? No, the effect is still there, but irrelevant.
Similarily, if you cast false life at CL 5 and get 6 temporary HP, then cast false life and get 14 temporary HP, is the first casting dispelled or dismissed? No, it just is irrelevant as 10 HP is more than 6.
Now, if you take, say, 20 points of damage, your second casting of false life takes the first 14, and you lose 6 from your actual hit points. As the first casting of false life wasn't dispelled nor dismissed, and it's the strongest effect on the you, you now have 6 temporary hit points.
Admittedly, this is a fuzzy area and one reading for the effect would be that while the first 8 points are absorbed by the first spell, the following 6 points are absorbed by _both_ spells, but still using both up and only stopping those 6 points.
There is a decent chance that that's actually what happens. However, it's certainly not spelled out.
And the overlap between Protection and Resist specifically provides for the Protection to be used up before Resist kicks in, so the best effect may not apply in cases where remaining Protection < Resistance.Possibly. Of course, this is stupid.
The other way of reading it, however, would be that protection actually does stack with resistance, when remaining protection is less than resistance. *sigh*The best bet is to let the protection that remains but which is less than resistance to be wasted, really... although allowing stacking as an exception might not be such a mad idea - it's just two spells with a specific interaction, and similar roots.
I apologize, I misread your prior post, it's NOT stacking. But it could get kinda close to stacking. Alternatively, the damage could be taken from all pools of identical Protection/Temp hp simultaneously.
Protection and Resist are effectively doing the exact same thing...negating the energy damage. Resist just does x/instance, while Protection effectively provides temporary hit points.
Because they overlap, they provide equal resistance at all times, for every instance.
Thus, if you have Protect/Fire 100 pts, and Fire Resist 20, and get hit by a 50 pt fire attack, the prot fire absorbs 50 pts and the fire resist resists 20...but you don't see the resist, you see the Prot 'burning off'. That's overlapping.
If you have 10 pts of Prot left, and get hit by 30 pts, the 10 pts AND the res/20 both kick off. The prot burns away, and you get 20 pts of resistance. You get hit by 10 pts dmg...you can 'see' the resist fire at work this time.
If they stacked, the Prot/Energy would burn off, THEN the resist fire would kick in. Because they overlap, you apply both simultaneously.
Ergo, having 1 pt of Prot/Fire never stops Resist Fire...the Resist is always working, you're just not seeing it when you got lots of Prot points. Once the Prot is below the Resist, you can see the Resist at work...but it doesn't stop the Prot from being burned away, regardless. That's the differnce between 'overlap' and 'stacking'.
"Whatever is best for the PC" is the rule. That generally means : Check Immunity; Check SR; Save for half (or none w Evasion/Mettle); Apply Protection from X effects that sink dmg; Apply Resistance to attack; Apply VUlnerability to dmg taken; apply against Temporary hit points; Apply remaining damage to hit points.
==Aelryinth
Protection and Resist are effectively doing the exact same thing...negating the energy damage. Resist just does x/instance, while Protection effectively provides temporary hit points.
Because they overlap, they provide equal resistance at all times, for every instance.
Thus, if you have Protect/Fire 100 pts, and Fire Resist 20, and get hit by a 50 pt fire attack, the prot fire absorbs 50 pts and the fire resist resists 20...but you don't see the resist, you see the Prot 'burning off'. That's overlapping.
If you have 10 pts of Prot left, and get hit by 30 pts, the 10 pts AND the res/20 both kick off. The prot burns away, and you get 20 pts of resistance. You get hit by 10 pts dmg...you can 'see' the resist fire at work this time.
If they stacked, the Prot/Energy would burn off, THEN the resist fire would kick in. Because they overlap, you apply both simultaneously.
Ergo, having 1 pt of Prot/Fire never stops Resist Fire...the Resist is always working, you're just not seeing it when you got lots of Prot points. Once the Prot is below the Resist, you can see the Resist at work...but it doesn't stop the Prot from being burned away, regardless. That's the differnce between 'overlap' and 'stacking'.
"Whatever is best for the PC" is the rule. That generally means : Check Immunity; Check SR; Save for half (or none w Evasion/Mettle); Apply Protection from X effects that sink dmg; Apply Resistance to attack; Apply VUlnerability to dmg taken; apply against Temporary hit points; Apply remaining damage to hit points.
==Aelryinth
Sounds good to me!
That's why GMs were invented, to do the sensible thing when the rules are less than clear or don't make much sense.
LOL!! How dare you put logic, common sense, and rational thought into the Interwebz! This one sentence should be scribed across the covers and every single page of every RPG game and rulebook.
That's why GMs were invented, to do the sensible thing when the rules are less than clear or don't make much sense.
That is the sensable way to do it, but that is not following the letter of the RAW.
Assuming GMs are sensible and that they're good at determining what is clear and what doesn't make sense. And that they know better than the RAW, because they've had much more experience designing games to know when the RAW have screwed up.
Assuming GMs are sensible and that they're good at determining what is clear and what doesn't make sense. And that they know better than the RAW, because they've had much more experience designing games to know when the RAW have screwed up.That's why GMs were invented, to do the sensible thing when the rules are less than clear or don't make much sense.
That is the sensable way to do it, but that is not following the letter of the RAW.
Not exactly a good argument. You're saying the only time a house rule should be done is by a GM who's worked as a game designer?
You should re-read your books and the boards. The game designers themselves have said often and emphatically that Rule 0 is in there for a reason. It's their belief that the GM knows the gaming group infinitely better than they do, and should make the final decision as to what rules to use and what rules to toss out or change.
Not exactly a good argument. You're saying the only time a house rule should be done is by a GM who's worked as a game designer?
No. That's not what I implied.
I said:
Are you sensible?
Are you good at determining what is clear?
Are you good at determining what doesn't make sense?
Have you done enough analysis of the problem (including playtesting with different ability combinations and at different levels) to show that your change is superior to the RAW?
If so, you can change whatever the hell you want. You're a godly GM.
If not, maybe you need to do more thinking before you make a change to the RAW. Maybe energy resistance works the way it does after hours of playtesting and number crunching. . . who knows? I do know that 3.5 was heavily playtested -- PF was heavily playtested.
You should re-read your books and the boards. The game designers themselves have said often and emphatically that Rule 0 is in there for a reason. It's their belief that the GM knows the gaming group infinitely better than they do, and should make the final decision as to what rules to use and what rules to toss out or change.
Unfortunately, this is not a game of Pathfinder ): This is a rules forum discussing. . . the rules of Pathfinder. It's difficult to invoke "the most important rule" here when it's irrelevant. I invoke rule 0, therefore every rule is different. Fireballs are all blue fire since my d6s are blue. Great! How does that apply to the rules as written?
The rules as written state that resist energy grants energy resistance. That causes you to ignore X amount of energy damage from every individual source of damage. There are some exceptions to this (e.g. protection from energy), but generally speaking, energy resistance doesn't stack well with other sources and with other spells.
Not exactly a good argument. You're saying the only time a house rule should be done is by a GM who's worked as a game designer?No. That's not what I implied.
I said:
Are you sensible?
Are you good at determining what is clear?
Are you good at determining what doesn't make sense?
Have you done enough analysis of the problem (including playtesting with different ability combinations and at different levels) to show that your change is superior to the RAW?If so, you can change whatever the hell you want. You're a godly GM.
So in other words, while you didn't state it explicitly, you implied it. Otherwise you would not have had to take 5 lines to clarify your meaning.
If not, maybe you need to do more thinking before you make a change to the RAW. Maybe energy resistance works the way it does after hours of playtesting and number crunching. . . who knows? I do know that 3.5 was heavily playtested -- PF was heavily playtested.
Now you're changing the topic back to the energy resistance again and trying to conflate two different discussion lines within this thread into one. My original statement was a statement about how the GM was the final arbiter of the rules in a specific game, and that that was designed into the game for a reason. You are attempting to conflate that with a comment about a specific house rule I use (which others also use) to say that I didn't playtest it or read the rules, or perhaps that I am somehow specifying that the rules work the way I posted much earlier in the thread. Frankly, I'm not sure exactly what your argument is as it seems to change every five or six lines in an attempt to change the topic to somehow show I'm stupid and make willy nilly changes for the sake of them or something?
You should re-read your books and the boards. The game designers themselves have said often and emphatically that Rule 0 is in there for a reason. It's their belief that the GM knows the gaming group infinitely better than they do, and should make the final decision as to what rules to use and what rules to toss out or change.Unfortunately, this is not a game of Pathfinder ): This is a rules forum discussing. . . the rules of Pathfinder. It's difficult to invoke "the most important rule" here when it's irrelevant. I invoke rule 0, therefore every rule is different. Fireballs are all blue fire since my d6s are blue. Great! How does that apply to the rules as written?
The rules as written state that resist energy grants energy resistance. That causes you to ignore X amount of energy damage from every individual source of damage. There are some exceptions to this (e.g. protection from energy), but generally speaking, energy resistance doesn't stack well with other sources and with other spells.
A) Never said the rules I use were RAW, never claimed that in any way. I responded to your assertion that GMs shouldn't house rule unless they had years of game design and playtesting experience.
B) If you go read my original post on the OPs topic, I just said 'This is how we've done it in my game for years and it seems to work very well'. I never stated it was RAW. And you should realize that that is playtesting it in the most basic way possible, using it in game. Perhaps it is YOU who needs to realize that the way we do it in my game (and all the games I've played in for that matter, both under 3.5 and PF) for a reason and that it's been playtested heavily for years before you climb up on a high-horse and start spewing things about needing to have years of playtesting under your belt as a GM and game designer experience before you start house-ruling things.
C) Any discussion of rules must include house-rules, unless the OP specifically stated they don't want to know about anyone else's house rules (which this one did not, as far as I can tell). If you don't like someone's house-rule, or them commenting on it, that's fine. Don't read or post to the thread. But going around telling people they should not house-rule unless they have game design experience is a bit much.