Aspect of the Falcon Question


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 290 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CampinCarl9127 wrote:

Ah, good find Cevah! You learn something new everyday. I stand corrected.

_Ozy_ was using the two as an example as if they don't stack. Let's use a clearer example. Say an enemy has blessing of fervor active and you caste haste on him. What happens?

They can now make an extra attack, have +30 movement, and get the bonus +1 to hit, AC and reflex saves all in the same round.

In addition, they can choose one of the effects from BoF each round, but if they choose:

+30 movement, it does not stack with haste, so no benefit
extra attack it does not stack with haste, so no benefit
+2 to hit/AC/reflex save, these do not stack with the +1 bonuses from haste, so only +2 for each, not +3 for each.

If they choose to stand as a swift action or use the free metamagic, this works as normal.


I disagree Ozy. Since blessing of fervor has a blanket statement saying it does not stack with haste, the entirety of both spells do not stack with each other. Specific overrides general. In this case, the specific wording of the spell overrides the general stacking rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Under the general stacking rules, the bonuses from haste and the ability to freely apply a metamagic feat do not stack. They don't need to, because they are completely separate effects that have nothing to do with each other.

Under the specific wording of the spell, those effects are not allowed to stack. This doesn't change the fact that they don't need to, because they're still just unrelated effects that happen to be occurring at the same time.

On the other hand, two untyped bonuses to attack rolls from different sources normally would stack, but are not allowed to by the specific wording of the spell.


So much bold text!

Why don't we just ask the Paizo people?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
I disagree Ozy. Since blessing of fervor has a blanket statement saying it does not stack with haste, the entirety of both spells do not stack with each other. Specific overrides general. In this case, the specific wording of the spell overrides the general stacking rules.

BoF does not redefine what the word stack means. My response is 100% consistent with BoF not stacking with Haste.


Avoron wrote:

Under the general stacking rules, the bonuses from haste and the ability to freely apply a metamagic feat do not stack. They don't need to, because they are completely separate effects that have nothing to do with each other.

Under the specific wording of the spell, those effects are not allowed to stack. This doesn't change the fact that they don't need to, because they're still just unrelated effects that happen to be occurring at the same time.

On the other hand, two untyped bonuses to attack rolls from different sources normally would stack, but are not allowed to by the specific wording of the spell.

Plus, normally dodge bonuses to AC stack, however they do not with Haste and BoF because specific overrides general. The dodge bonus to Reflex saves would normally stack, but they don't either.

Also, the +30 movement is not defined as an enhancement bonus, so normally that would stack with Haste. However, since specific overrides general, it does not stack.


So in other words, the specific wording of the spell means absolutely nothing because the general rules cover it anyways? Why is that line even there than?

I would absolutely love to just ask the developers from Paizo, except for the fact they almost never answer our questions.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Avoron wrote:


** spoiler omitted **...

I was actually agreeing that, in the examples you gave, they explained what stacked and didn't. I'm AGREEING with you on those, and pointing out how they are different from Aspect of the Falcon.

You're reading far more into what I'm saying than what I am actually saying.

I'm actually not reading into the spell as much as Carl is.

I'm saying that Aspect of the Falcon lists a single effect that changes criticals - "the critical multiplier for your bows and crossbows becomes 19-20/x3" - and then states "This effect does not stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon, such as the Improved Critical feat or a keen weapon."

As there is a single effect there, that effect does not stack because the spell says it doesn't.

That's the entirety of what I'm saying.

Heck, you want your Crossbow to be better with Aspect of the Falcon, be a Bolt Ace and get 19-20/x4 criticals (or use Improved Critical as a Bolt Ace without the Aspect of the Falcon and get the 17-20/x3).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
So in other words, the specific wording of the spell means absolutely nothing because the general rules cover it anyways? Why is that line even there than?

The line prevents things that normally stack from stacking - including the movement increases, attack roll bonuses, and ac bonuses.

If two things don't stack, but instead function completely independently, they are unaffected by that line of text.
For example, the ability to apply a metamagic feat at no cost does not "stack" with a bonus to speed - they are completely separate effects that apply separately.
Saying that they stack wouldn't even make sense, because the stacking rules don't apply to unrelated benefits: darkvision will never stack with flight; they don't have anything to do with each other. They just each happen on their own. That's not stacking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CampinCarl9127 wrote:

So in other words, the specific wording of the spell means absolutely nothing because the general rules cover it anyways? Why is that line even there than?

I would absolutely love to just ask the developers from Paizo, except for the fact they almost never answer our questions.

Dude, a couple of us gave several examples of how the specific rule matters in this case, it prevents the following which the general stack rules WOULD ALLOW:

+3 to hit
+60 movemnt
+3 AC
+3 reflex save

Instead of writing specific rules preventing each of these in the spell description, they just said: haste and BoF don't stack.


Without the line about not stacking you could stack the movement, extra attack, to hit, AC, and reflex save increases as they are all types that would legally stack otherwise. Additionally :

Blessing of Fervor wrote:
These effects are not cumulative with similar effects, such as those provided by haste or a speed weapon, nor do they actually grant an extra action, so you can't use it to cast a second spell or otherwise take an extra action in the round. Blessing of fervor does not stack with haste.

There is no reason for the first line of the restrictions on blessing of fervor to list effects not being cumulative with haste if it can't stack with haste in any way.


_Ozy_ wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:

So in other words, the specific wording of the spell means absolutely nothing because the general rules cover it anyways? Why is that line even there than?

I would absolutely love to just ask the developers from Paizo, except for the fact they almost never answer our questions.

Dude, a couple of us gave several examples of how the specific rule matters in this case, it prevents the following which the general stack rules WOULD ALLOW:

+3 to hit
+60 movemnt
+3 AC
+3 reflex save

Instead of writing specific rules preventing each of these in the spell description, they just said: haste and BoF don't stack.

That's proving my point. Haste and BoF specifically call out the extra attacks not stacking, and then BoF additionally specifies that the two spells don't stack at all. They very clearly show that sometimes abilities cannot stack even if they provide different benefits. AotF is one of those times.

The spell very black and white specifically calls out that it doesn't stack with any other effect that increases crit range. If they wanted only certain aspects of it to not stack, they would have worded it like haste to call out specifically what abilities do not stack.

AotF never stacks with any effect that increases crit range, under any circumstances.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
AotF never stacks with any effect that increases crit range, under any circumstances.

That is true.

And when two unrelated effects do completely different things at the same time, that is not stacking.

Even without the specific text, there is only a single portion of Aspect of the Falcon that could ever stack with the benefits of Improved Critical or a keen weapon: the increase of critical threat range.

So that is the only thing at all affected by the line forbidding those effects from stacking.

The other portions don't stack, just like normal. They just happen independently.


Stacking is referring to the entire spell, not each independent part. You either get

1) All effects of AotF and no other crit range increasing effects.

or

2) A crit range increasing effect and no effects of AotF.

You're not even allowed to have feathers on your head and wield a keen weapon.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Torbyne wrote:
I am surprised by the strength of your reaction to this combination, do you have it come up that often at the table?

No, I've never seen a player use this combo in 150+ GM credit and 170+ player credit.

I'm reacting this strongly because it should be well understood it doesn't stack because it says doesn't stack.


James Risner wrote:
I'm reacting this strongly because it should be well understood it doesn't stack because it says doesn't stack.

Yes, I'm pretty shocked people are arguing for it as well. But apparently now the argument is "stacking doesn't work that way". They are redefining what stacking means.


I suppose the issue arise from stacking being a mentioned effect in the game but overlap only exists by inference?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, it does not stack.

Having two completely separate and unrelated effects active at the same time is not stacking and never has been.

I just don't know how else to explain it.


someweirdguy wrote:
I don't concur that they're different versions of the spell, but to forestall further argument, Greater Magic Fang is an example. You couldn't have one casting of it enhancing a bite and another enhancing a claw.

Yes, I think that is a better example, and I agree with that ruling.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

CampinCarl9127 wrote:
They are redefining what stacking means.

Not new. Since 2000 people have been:

Stacking Orange Ioun stones for + 5 CL
Stacking nightsticks for 15 extra turn undead a day
Stacking 2 speed weapons for two extra attacks
Stacking two Supernatural effects because they are not spells


CampinCarl9127: I posted because my understanding of stacking doesn't seem to match yours. From my understanding, stacking is only about the individual checks and stats and not about entire spells and effects. As of yet, I haven't seen anything to change my mind.

As far as this combination, I hadn't thought about it at all until I read the thread. I have no comment on it's strength or anything else, I'm just saying how it reads to me.


James Risner wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
They are redefining what stacking means.

Not new. Since 2000 people have been:

Stacking Orange Ioun stones for + 5 CL
Stacking nightsticks for 15 extra turn undead a day
Stacking 2 speed weapons for two extra attacks
Stacking two Supernatural effects because they are not spells

Wait, are you saying that you can never have two SU effects operating at the same time, or are you saying that you can't 'stack' two SU effects that 'have the same effect'?

Because according to your loose definition of stacking it's not restricted to the same effect.

And yet, everything you listed above deals with the same effect, boosting CL, adding extra turns, getting extra attacks, etc...

What is your opinion about BoF and Haste? Can you stand as a swift action using BoF if you are currently hasted?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
That's proving my point. Haste and BoF specifically call out the extra attacks not stacking, and then BoF additionally specifies that the two spells don't stack at all. They very clearly show that sometimes abilities cannot stack even if they provide different benefits. AotF is one of those times.

Nope, that merely adds the bonus to hit, bonus to AC, extra movement, and bonus to reflex save to the list of non-stacking effects when they otherwise would stack.

The other abilities don't 'stack' because they don't overlap with the effects from Haste at all. It's like saying a bonus to hit and a bonus to damage don't stack. Of course they don't, they are different things.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder needs a way of combining two changes to the same aspect of the game. The rules define two methods of combining: stacking and not stacking. Stacking means adding the modifying numbers together. Not stacking means taking the highest of the modifying numbers. Taking the higher number does involve no longer using the lower number, but that is not the same as suppressing the change with the lower number.

Core Rulebook, Getting Started wrote:
Stacking: Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic. Generally speaking, most bonuses of the same type do not stack. Instead, only the highest bonus applies. Most penalties do stack, meaning that their values are added together. Penalties and bonuses generally stack with one another, meaning that the penalties might negate or exceed part or all of the bonuses, and vice versa.

Though the rule above mentions only bonuses and penalties, the stack and not-stack methods are applied to a other effects that modify the same aspect. Spells do not stack with a copy of the same spell that affect the same aspect of the game; for example, casting two Walls of Fire in the same place does not create a double-strength Wall of Fire. Some prestige classes have their class levels stack with Druid levels for Animal Companion, Ranger levels for Favored Terrain, or Fighter levels for qualifying for feats. Size increases, such as those from Enlarge Person and Righteous Might, do not stack. The keen weapon enchantment and the Improved Critical feat do not stack. Some of these things are not numbers, but we have mathematics that lets us add them or determine the highest.

In this thread, people are arguing how to combine the change from keen that doubles the threat range 19-20/×2 of a crossbow to 17-20/×2 and the change from Aspect of the Falcon that increases the critical-hit properties 19-20/×2 of a crossbow to 19-20/×3.

Doubling a threat range is a form of additive bonus, for it adds two numbers on the d20 that are considered a critical threat, so we can add or determine the highest for this change. Increasing the critical multiplier is also an additive bonus, adding 1 to a multiplier of 2 to make a multiplier of 3, so we can add or determine the highest for this change. Therefore the stack or not-stack method applies to both these number-like bonuses, and the Aspect of Falcon spell says to use the not-stack method.

However, the critical properties of a weapon is not the threat range number nor the critical multiplier number, it is both. We mathematicians call this an ordered pair of numbers. And ordered pairs are not numbers. One of the numerical properties that ordered pairs lack is a complete ordering, the property that guarantees that we can always find the largest of two numbers. (Anyone who has had to work with complex numbers, which are an ordered pair of two numbers called the real part and the imaginary part, should recall the frustration of losing this property.) Ordered pairs are only partially ordered. (We mathematicians overuse the word "order" as much as D&D and Pathfinder overuse the word "level.")

The ordered pair 17-20/×2 is higher than 19-20/×2 and lower than 17-20/×3. The ordered pair 19-20/×3 is also higher than 19-20/×2 and lower than 17-20/×3. But the ordered pairs 17-20/×2 and 19-20/×3 are incomparable, neither higher nor lower than each other.

Therefore, we cannot apply the not-stacking method to these ordered pairs. It is mathematically impossible. Rules as Written does not cover this case.

Instead, we have to extend the not-stacking method to be able to handle this impossible case.

One method is to claim that the not-stacking method was not meant to apply to ordered pairs, so we should break down the ordered pairs into pieces that can be completely ordered. This means to treat the threat range number and the critical multiplier number separately. This form of not-stacking combines 17-20/×2 and 19-20/×3 to give 17-20/×3. The examples that Avoron provided are consistent with this method. We could argue that this is RAW because it lets us interpret the rules so that the impossible case does not exist.

Another method is to allow circumstances to dictate which number of the pair is the most relevant to the ordering. If the crossbow attack roll was a natural 17, then the threat range is the most important number because 17-20/×2 gives a better result than 19-20/×3. In contrast, if the crossbow attack roll was a natural 20, then the critical multiplier is the most important number because 19-20/×3 gives a better result than 17-20/×2. We could argue that this is RAW because RAW delegates determining the highest to common sense.

As James Risner said, Table Variance is a thing. And that thing happens when the RAW have an impossible case.


Mathmuse wrote:

Instead, we have to extend the not-stacking method to be able to handle this impossible case.

One method is to claim that the not-stacking method was not meant to apply to ordered pairs, so we should break down the ordered pairs into pieces that can be completely ordered. This means to treat the threat range number and the critical multiplier number separately. This form of not-stacking combines 17-20/×2 and 19-20/×3 to give 17-20/×3. The examples that Avoron provided are consistent with this method. We could argue that this is RAW because it lets us interpret the rules so that the impossible case does not exist.

Another method is to allow circumstances to dictate which number of the pair is the most relevant to the ordering. If the crossbow attack roll was a natural 17, then the threat range is the most important number because 17-20/×2 gives a better result than 19-20/×3. In contrast, if the crossbow attack roll was a natural 20, then the critical multiplier is the most important number because 19-20/×3 gives a better result than 17-20/×2. We could argue that this is RAW because RAW delegates determining the highest to common sense.

As James Risner said, Table Variance is a thing. And that thing happens when the RAW have an impossible case.

This almost seems to sum up the rules issue in a logical way. Now, what is the logic for "The spell says it does not stack, therefore nothing in the entire game can overwrite it" per CapinCaril's apparent argument?


Avoron wrote:

Yes, it does not stack.

Having two completely separate and unrelated effects active at the same time is not stacking and never has been.

I just don't know how else to explain it.

I don't know how else to explain it either. I feel like I'm slamming my head against a brick wall and people keep building the same brick wall right behind it.

The spell is what cannot stack. Not any individual effects of it. The spell. The spell cannot stack with any other abilities that increase critical range.

But at this point I don't see where else the conversation could possibly go. I say we all just bow out and let people make their own conclusions, because I don't believe either side is backing down.


I'm still not sure why people interpret this rule:

Quote:
Stacking: Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic.

as if the bolded words do not exist. I can understand extrapolating that 'one particular' qualifier to other effects besides only checks and statistics, but clearly stacking refers to 'one particular' effect, that's a fundamental property of what stacking actually means.

Otherwise you would have to specifically allow to hit enhancement bonuses to 'stack' with damage enhancement bonuses since by default, with a 'loose' definition of stacking, they wouldn't.


_Ozy_ wrote:

I'm still not sure why people interpret this rule:

Quote:
Stacking: Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic.

as if the bolded words do not exist. I can understand extrapolating that 'one particular' qualifier to other effects besides only checks and statistics, but clearly stacking refers to 'one particular' effect, that's a fundamental property of what stacking actually means.

Otherwise you would have to specifically allow to hit enhancement bonuses to 'stack' with damage enhancement bonuses since by default, with a 'loose' definition of stacking, they wouldn't.

I think where the issue comes in is you sometimes see loose language like "Blessing of fervor does not stack with haste." It seems obvious/clear, IMO, that this means individual bonuses that are the same from both spells don't stack but I can see someone reading it the other way if you don't look up how stacking is on one particular check or statistic.

I see things like "Blessing of fervor does not stack with haste" pointing out the following doesn't apply. "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."

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

CampinCarl9127 wrote:
But at this point I don't see where else the conversation could possibly go. I say we all just bow out and let people make their own conclusions, because I don't believe either side is backing down.

This was where we found ourselves the second someone said "they stack" for 17-20/x3.

I'd back down to 17-20/x3 is one RAW and the other is 19-20/x3 with table variance, but it seems the 17-20 side would like to say "I'm right and you wrong, just cause, no proof needed".


James Risner wrote:

"I'm right and you wrong, just cause, no proof needed".

This is curious as this is what I'm seeing from your side. I have yet to see anything that states that anything overrides the "one particular check or statistic" part of stacking but plenty of proof, quotes and rules from our side. For the same reason you don't check saves for stacking but instead check for will, fort and ref, you also don't check for crit but threat range and multiplier.

Where I don't see proof of is your taking an entire set of bonuses from one effect OR another set of bonuses from another effect, in essence ignoring the "one particular check or statistic" and instead replacing it with "one block of checks or statistics".

Now I'll agree it's worded poorly. It increases the threat range of bows and the multiplier of crossbows but lumps it into 19-20/x3 and calls it a critical multiplier.


James Risner wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
But at this point I don't see where else the conversation could possibly go. I say we all just bow out and let people make their own conclusions, because I don't believe either side is backing down.

This was where we found ourselves the second someone said "they stack" for 17-20/x3.

I'd back down to 17-20/x3 is one RAW and the other is 19-20/x3 with table variance, but it seems the 17-20 side would like to say "I'm right and you wrong, just cause, no proof needed".

The rules state that Blessing of Fervor does not stack with Haste. Does this mean, at your table, you wouldn't allow someone who is hasted to use ANY of the options from blessing of fervor? Like the metamagic, or stand as a swift action?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

You know what, I give up. I'll go with your reading of things.

I still don't feel that is the way it should be - Aspect of the Falcon, as graystone points out, lumps the change for bows and crossbows into a single effect and then says it doesn't stack.

But you've convinced me, and now I'm going to go make a Bolt Ace that does 17-20/x4 Criticals.


Mathmuse wrote:
...lots of good things.

It's always nice to meet another mathematician here.


someweirdguy wrote:
I still don't feel that is the way it should be

I think two thing might of happened. Either:

1) In an effort to save space they combined the increases of threat range increase for bows to 19-20 and the increase in multiplier for crossbows to x3 to 19-20/x3 and didn't think of the inconsistency it created.

2) They where thinking that stacking can covered more than "one particular check or statistic" or that crit WAS one. Who knows, it might be a new unwritten rule we don't know about...

As far as should, that really isn't part of my thinking. The rules section isn't for should or intended but what is. It wouldn't surprise me in the least is the actual intent was #2 but if that's the case they failed horribly to correctly word it with the stacking rules as they are.


The original question is fairly trivial - I don't think the 17-20/x4 Bolt Ace is exactly the most powerful archer out there - but the idea that you can't have (for example) two different Resist Energy spells going at once is a new one to me. Apparently it's been debated (fairly inconclusively) before.


graystone wrote:
someweirdguy wrote:
I still don't feel that is the way it should be

I think two thing might of happened. Either:

1) In an effort to save space they combined the increases of threat range increase for bows to 19-20 and the increase in multiplier for crossbows to x3 to 19-20/x3 and didn't think of the inconsistency it created.

2) They where thinking that stacking can covered more than "one particular check or statistic" or that crit WAS one. Who knows, it might be a new unwritten rule we don't know about...

As far as should, that really isn't part of my thinking. The rules section isn't for should or intended but what is. It wouldn't surprise me in the least is the actual intent was #2 but if that's the case they failed horribly to correctly word it with the stacking rules as they are.

When the spell was created was there any other way to increase the multiplier? Bolt Ace didn't exist at the time.


_Ozy_ wrote:
The rules state that Blessing of Fervor does not stack with Haste. Does this mean, at your table, you wouldn't allow someone who is hasted to use ANY of the options from blessing of fervor? Like the metamagic, or stand as a swift action?

That's the way I rule it.

Blessing of Fervor says it doesn't stack with haste, therefore it doesn't.

-------

If you had one spell that read:

Name: Foo
Effect: You get +2 to Handle Animal checks concerning pet rocks.

and another:

Name: Bar
Effect: Whenever you you eat an apple, you have +1 bonus to hit dinosaurs for 1 minute. This spell does not stack with Foo.

If you have both Foo and Bar cast on you, Bar's not going to work. Whether they provide the same or different effects is irrelevant.


A belt that gives you a +2 enhancement bonus to Strength does not stack with a headband that gives you a +2 enhancement bonus to Wisdom, since enhancement bonuses do not stack with one another. Does that mean I can't benefit from both at once?

I think my interpretation of 'stacking' as only ever referring to individual bonuses is simpler and cleaner than the other interpretation.

If I have Foo and Bar and Foo gives me (+1 to attack, +2 to damage & +2 to Perception) and Bar gives me (+2 to attack, +1 to damage and +2 to Acrobatics) and they don't stack, what do I get? By my interpretation I get +2 to attack and +2 to damage and +2 to Perception and +2 to Acrobatics. By the other interpretation, I'd have to determine which of two effects suppresses the other.


Byakko wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
The rules state that Blessing of Fervor does not stack with Haste. Does this mean, at your table, you wouldn't allow someone who is hasted to use ANY of the options from blessing of fervor? Like the metamagic, or stand as a swift action?

That's the way I rule it.

Blessing of Fervor says it doesn't stack with haste, therefore it doesn't.

-------

If you had one spell that read:

Name: Foo
Effect: You get +2 to Handle Animal checks concerning pet rocks.

and another:

Name: Bar
Effect: Whenever you you eat an apple, you have +1 bonus to hit dinosaurs for 1 minute. This spell does not stack with Foo.

If you have both Foo and Bar cast on you, Bar's not going to work. Whether they provide the same or different effects is irrelevant.

Ah... Bar already doesn't stack with Foo as they have no common check or statistic. It's like saying this Sword Q can't be used as ammo in bows; well duh, that applies to all swords. Same with the above. Handle animal checks and to hits have no effect on each other and aren't the same "check or statistic". You get the equivalent of the pre-errata prone shooter...

Matthew Downie: Yep. If you look at it the other way you have abilities/spells/ect turning on and off depending on what spells are cast. it leads to situations where Blessing of Fervor is a debuff on people with haste which is crazy. Do you track what initiative spells are cast on to figure out which spell is first? Or is there some other esoteric way to figure out which one stays?


It's probably not that hard to figure out which spell is 'first'. The first one is first, and you lose it when you get the second one.

But it does seem odd that you can buff your enemies to remove their bonuses.


Matthew Downie wrote:
The original question is fairly trivial - I don't think the 17-20/x4 Bolt Ace is exactly the most powerful archer out there - but the idea that you can't have (for example) two different Resist Energy spells going at once is a new one to me. Apparently it's been debated (fairly inconclusively) before.

When I said in my previous post that spells don't stack with another copy of the same spell, I was oversimplifying. The actual rule is an entire section, "Combining Magic Effects," of the Magic chaper of the Core Rulebook. That section begins:

Core Rulebook, Magic wrote:

Combining Magic Effects

Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient. Except in special cases, a spell does not affect the way another spell operates. Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, the spell description explains that effect. Several other general rules apply when spells or magical effects operate in the same place:

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).
...

In other words, spells don't suppress each other; instead, their bonuses and penalties follow the usual stacking and not-stacking rules. The argument Matthew Downie linked to is based on the paragraph,

Core Rulebook, Magic wrote:
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.

I italicized the word "irrelevant" because I want to point out that irrelevant is not the same as suppressed. If the spellcaster casts both Blindness on his sole opponent and Invisibility on himself, the invisibility is irrelevant, but still fully active.

Polymorph spells have their own rules and can suppress another spell.


Right. I think I get it, there seems to be some confusion. In a batch of MMOs that includes WoW, spells are considered individual entities unto themselves. In those games, one spell that doesn't 'stack' with another overwrites it when cast, even if the new one is worse (Or the best applies, depending on the game.)

Pathfinder explicitly doesn't work that way. Per everything above, spells are always divided into their individual effects for purposes of determining how stacking functions - in effect, "stacking spells" doesn't even mean anything in the system, because it never happens.


not stacking doesn't mean both can't work at once.
If AofF didn't have that line then when it increased the crit range improved crit would double that new increased crit rage to get a bigger range. Thus they say it doesn't stack, so the changing of the crit ranges don't stack, because otherwise they would by the rules. But the rest of the spell that does different things still works just fine.

The dodge feat gives a +1 dodge bonus. Let's say there's a spell "Dodgy" that says, you get +1 dodge bonus to AC. You also get a +3 to acrobatic to avoid provoking. This effect doesn't stack with the dodge feat.

What you'd end up with is just the effects of the spell, because you'd take the higher of the 2 dodge bonuses and use that one and the higher of the 2 acrobatics. Since the feat doesn't give acrobatics the spell wins that part, then there's a tie for the AC so it doesn't matter. Now normally Dodge bonuses stack form different sources, in this case a feat and a spell. Thus you need the line saying they don't stack to have the normally stacking parts not stack.

since there's no rule that says extra attacks during a full attack don't stack haste and BoF need the line saying they don't stack otherwise you could get 2 extra attacks. Normally the dodge bonuses would stack with those two spells, but since the spells don't stack, you'd take the higher of the two bonuses. Not stacking in no way affects things that aren't the same bonus. So with haste and BoF you have both going at the same time and can choose your option with BoF, and if any bonus is the same as the kind you get from haste then you only get the higher of the two.


Byakko wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
The rules state that Blessing of Fervor does not stack with Haste. Does this mean, at your table, you wouldn't allow someone who is hasted to use ANY of the options from blessing of fervor? Like the metamagic, or stand as a swift action?

That's the way I rule it.

Blessing of Fervor says it doesn't stack with haste, therefore it doesn't.

-------

If you had one spell that read:

Name: Foo
Effect: You get +2 to Handle Animal checks concerning pet rocks.

and another:

Name: Bar
Effect: Whenever you you eat an apple, you have +1 bonus to hit dinosaurs for 1 minute. This spell does not stack with Foo.

If you have both Foo and Bar cast on you, Bar's not going to work. Whether they provide the same or different effects is irrelevant.

Except that BoF and Haste have a large number of overlapping effects in which it makes sense to state that the two don't overlap.

Foo and Bar have no overlapping effects, so it makes as much sense to say that you can't stack those spells as it does to say you can't stack your armor bonus and resistance bonus. Of course you can't, they are two different effects.


Matthew Downie wrote:

It's probably not that hard to figure out which spell is 'first'. The first one is first, and you lose it when you get the second one.

But it does seem odd that you can buff your enemies to remove their bonuses.

There are no rules like these in pathfinder that adjudicate which buffs are suppressed based on the order in which they are cast. You would have to invent them yourself. Why would you lose it when you get the second spell instead of the second spell just having no effect>

Pathfinder doesn't specify, which is another reason to believe this is an incorrect interpretation.


There's a reason you never see spells like Foo and Bar - that writing is atrocious, and as graystone pointed out, doesn't change anything at all. Those spells could never stack, just like darkvision and flight can never stack, and restating that they don't stack does nothing.

When coming up with that list of examples earlier, I seached the PRD for the phrase "does not stack."
Everything I could find was referring to two effects that had the potential to influence the same check, statistic, or other aspect of a character - like stoneblood and fortification armor.
I did not encounter anything like Foo and Bar, and if you've seen something along those lines, by all means bring it up; it would add to the discussion.

The bottom line is that the term "stacking" applies to effects that are actually affecting the same thing. Completely separate effects like darkvision and flight (or Perception bonuses and threat range increases) don't stack, they just happen independently at the same time.
So text prohibiting stacking has no effect on this sort of thing, because they don't need to stack.


Also, for the record: The wording you'd be looking for to cover this rules interpretation is not: X does not stack with Y.

The wording you're looking for is: A subject/target cannot be affected by both X and Y simultaneously. If they would be, (X or Y) takes precedence.

101 to 150 of 290 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Aspect of the Falcon Question All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.