Fullereno's page

Nothing states that the attack is negated, only that the attacker is punished for it. So, you can call this spell Spike's chip field.

I assumed the "wracking pain" part was synonim of negated attack. My fault then. Thanks :)

It can be a stupid question, but I dont understand a little thing about Serenity spell.

Second sentence of the description states:

Those attempting to commit violence become stricken with wracking pain and take 3d6 points of nonlethal damage each round they attempt to harm another creature.

My doubt is, if a creature afected by this spell tries a violent action (for example a bite) against another creature, it successfully makes the attack AND get the 3d6 of nonlethal damage, or it gets the 3d6 of nonlethal damage only (because being in pain impedes the normal attack)?

Thanks people :)

It's basically like using Bestow Curse twice, which is fine...Assuming you're not trying to inflict the same curse twice.

You could for instance cause a curse to reduce their saves and another to give them only a 50% chance to act. But you couldn't penalize their saves twice.

But could I apply the -6 penalty to the same Ability Score from both spells (in order to get a -12)? I thought I could, because the penalties are from different source and are untyped

So according to Pathfinder Core Rules, Chapter 9, Magic, page 208:

The Spell's Result

Bonus Types

Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don't generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works (see Combining Magical Effects). The same principle applies to penalties — a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one, although most penalties have no type and thus always stack. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.

The last sentence of this paragraph references "bonuses" but the sentence before it specifically says "the same principle applies to penalties". This does leave a little room for rules-lawyers to wriggle and squirm and say that only bonuses cannot stack if they're from the same source, but I think the intent of this paragraph is quite clear. Semantically, I would agree that it would have been more clear if the last two sentences were reversed in the order in which they appear, but either way, the meaning is quite clear:

Two or more "typed" penalties of the same type, take the worst one and ignore the rest.

Two or more "untyped" penalties always stack - unless they are from the same source.

But, the first phrase in the Conditional Curse description states that:

This spell functions as bestow curse, except that you must state a condition under which the curse is broken, ending its effect.

The thing is I don't know if that "as" in the description means that Conditional Curse "somehow substitutes" Bestow Curse, or it merely intends to explain how it works.

Other than that, Conditional Curse would comply with the rules in order to be stackable with Bestow Curse: A) Untyped penalties B) From different sources.

So, Do they stack or not?

Thanks