I've just wondered: what happens if a burning skeleton wields a flaming weapon? Does the 1D6 fire damage from both "sources" add up to 2D6, or is it still just 1D6 (since it can't be any more "flamy")?
Or even more confusing: what if that burning skeleton is wielding a frost weapon? Will the weapon deal both fire and ice damage? Do they cancel each other out? Can you only use one element per round?
|
this is a situational thing here, the example you gave i would have to throw a yes, because of two different sources of fire dmg are coming at you, and then of course with the opposing elements as well. so for a general out line i'd go with yes, but i'm sure someone can think of a situation where its a no
Can't find a ruling for the first question, but it wouldn't break your game necessarily to say yes. You're probably going for flavour with the Flaming sword and stuff, so in that case I'd say houserule it in. In all likelihood if you didn't give it Flaming you'd give it something else that did stack and wasn't in sync with the concept you're after.
As per the second question, yes they stack and do not counteract each other.
|
is there anything saying it doesn't stack?
i've had a player ask a similar question. heres the breakdown:
would you prefer a play having a +2 flaming(d6), shock(d6), acidic(d6), frost(d6) weapon or a 2 Flaming x4(4d6) weapon?
the flaming x4 weapon sounds less silly imho, and lends its self to more traditional stereotypes.
plenty of story's have characters with a massively flaming sword, but i cant think of one that has a sword of hella elements
Yeah, it can get ridiculous if you use too many damage sources, but a Multi-Faming weapon sounds fine - especially for giants, since that one +1W6 fire damage doesn't increase with size.
As long as it doesnt get too ridiculous and are not from the same source let it stack.
Personally I think a fire/frost weapon is a bit counter productive I'd prolly make it negate eachothers damage.
After thinking about it, I had a look in the Core and i'd like to revise my answer.
Core p.209: Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies.
So only 1 would apply as per RAW. However, for the sake of flavour you may wish to houserule that they stack. Just make clear that it is a houserule to your players tho, and well beforehand, or they might feel cheated.
Core p.209: Spells with Opposite Effects: Spells with opposite effects apply normally, with all bonuses, penalties, or changes accruing in the order that they apply. Some spells negate or counter each other. This is a special effect that is noted in a spell’s description.
No problem here, they stack as usual, like i said. As always tho, Rule Zero trumps Core.
Core p.209: Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies.So only 1 would apply as per RAW. However, for the sake of flavour you may wish to houserule that they stack. Just make clear that it is a houserule to your players tho, and well beforehand, or they might feel cheated.
Actually, according to RAW, that's spells. The flaming skeleton and the flaming sword will "stack". The damage is not considered a "bonus" so there's no threat of them not stacking. The only time you worry about stacking is when you're talking about bonuses.
I can see where you'd interpret it that way, every paragraph describing 'Combining Magic Effects' uses the term spell, but if you look at the 1st sentence it plainly says: Spells or magical effects.
p.432 describing underwater environments has the lines: "A supernatural fire effect..." and "spell-like effects with the fire descriptor are ineffective underwater..."
So fire effects are not only spells, but spell-like abilities and supernatural abilities. Let's look at the description of magic weapons and flaming:
Activation:
If a weapon has a special ability that the user needs to activate, then the user usually needs to utter a command word (a standard action).
Flaming: Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.
Table 15-29 p.550 (Creating Magic Items) describes Command word activation items as a spell effect.
This is in the same vein as why a Monk can't utilise the TWF feat in conjunction with Flurry of Blows - they're the same effect.
Yeah, it can get ridiculous if you use too many damage sources, but a Multi-Faming weapon sounds fine - especially for giants, since that one +1W6 fire damage doesn't increase with size.
The bonus damage doesn't increase with size, but then again, nothing except base weapon dice do: Sneak attack remains d6s, spells retain their original dice, and a weapon's enhancement bonus stays +x. It doesn't become +1d2/+1d3/+1d4 for bigger critters.
on a side note, that's crap.
everything should scale with size - movement speed all damage.
think about it, the flames licking off your huge greatsword are a lot larger, probably not hotter, but definitely affecting a larger surface area.
meh. i ask too much, i know. it would be a pretty complicated, i guess.
You had to cite 4 different places to make one point. You're splitting hairs, Tanis. The following, regardless of what's prior to the colon, is solely about spells.
Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies.
The sentence after the colon is a definition of what comes before the colon. If they had specified the term effect in the definition I might be inclined to agree with you.
However, you know as well as I do that the two effects stack.
Take, for instance, the stacking rules:
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.
This specifically talks about bonuses and penalties. If you really want to split hairs, the OP's example of flaming sword and flaming skeleton don't even come near this.
To split hairs even further, the Burning Skeleton's ability to burn things is Extraordinary (non-magical) and the flaming sword's damage comes from the magical enhancement of the sword. Two entirely different methods of dealing the fire damage. Therefore they should "stack".
In all honesty, I'm not even sure why I'm trying to convince you now.
|
|
You can also simply point to this:
Instantaneous Effects: Two or more spells with instantaneous durations work cumulatively when they affect the same target.
Since the flaming sword, flaming skeleton melee attack, and it's flaming aura are all instant effects (aka they do not continue for several rounds), they stack!
So getting hit by a burning skeleton while standing next to them means that you have taken at least 3d6 of fire damage in that round (1d6 for standing next to the skele, and 2d6 for being hit.)
Another way to look at it. If you get hit with two simultaneous cure moderate wounds spells, do you only take the healing from the one that rolled better?
Thank you, Happler. Your post sums up what I was trying to say. Yet in a much simpler and eloquent way. I hate trying to post at work.
Yeah, thanks for the help, guys!
So there are ways to make a flaming sword even more "flamy" (I guess the whole weapon will be on fire, not just the blade), and I think even a burning skeleton with a frost weapon might make sense: first the weapon freezes your limb, then the fire burns it. The sudden shift in temperature will then make it explode XD !
(And ice is probably the last kind of damage you'd expect from a skeleton on fire...)
|
|
Yeah, thanks for the help, guys!
So there are ways to make a flaming sword even more "flamy", and I think even a burning skeleton with a frost weapon might make sense: first the weapon freezes your limb, then the fire burns it. The sudden shift in temperature will then make it explode XD !
(And ice is probably the last kind of damage you'd expect from a skeleton on fire...)
Also a great way to drop some nice loot to the PCs. Assuming that they can take the skele down.
You had to cite 4 different places to make one point. You're splitting hairs, Tanis.
No, i'm interpreting the rules in context.
To split hairs even further, the Burning Skeleton's ability to burn things is Extraordinary (non-magical) and the flaming sword's damage comes from the magical enhancement of the sword. Two entirely different methods of dealing the fire damage. Therefore they should "stack".
That's RAW, baby. I stand corrected. I should've checked the racial ability.
In all honesty, I'm not even sure why I'm trying to convince you now.
ummm, we're interpreting rules. Don't stress.
on a side note, that's crap.
everything should scale with size - movement speed all damage.
think about it, the flames licking off your huge greatsword are a lot larger, probably not hotter, but definitely affecting a larger surface area.
meh. i ask too much, i know. it would be a pretty complicated, i guess.
You could throw well, most everything, out of the window then.
You'd have to base magic weapon cost (probably magic item cost in general) on size. A large +3 sword would be more expensive than a medium +3 sword, because it grants a bigger bonus.
The CR system would fall flat on its face, because larger spellcasters, rogues and most everything else would be more dangerous. Not that it's perfect now, but you'd have to rethink everything:
A Great Wyrm Red Dragon (colossal and sorcerer level 19) would be a much higher CR, as his Meteor Swarm would deal up to 128d6 points of damage, and his energy drains 4d8 negative levels.
And imagine the horror of a Rogue 5/ Wizard 5/ Arcane Trickster 10 using form of the dragon III:
1 bite 2d8 plus 16d6 sneak (8d6 increased in size two times)
+2 claws 2d6 plus 16d6 sneak
+2 wings 1d8 plus 16d6 sneak
+1 tail 2d6 plus 16d6 sneak
And imagine the horror of a Rogue 5/ Wizard 5/ Arcane Trickster 10 using form of the dragon III:
1 bite 2d8 plus 16d6 sneak (8d6 increased in size two times)
+2 claws 2d6 plus 16d6 sneak
+2 wings 1d8 plus 16d6 sneak
+1 tail 2d6 plus 16d6 sneak
Are there Dragon Ninja?!
And I'd say the size system is easy to use first and realistic second (or worse).
Sneak damage comes from the rogue attack weak spots in the enemy's anatomy. It's a bit hard to hit those spots if you're teeth are bigger than your target's head...
|
|
if you get all 4 holly berry bombs (fire seed) and throw it into an enemy, do the 4 bombs stack? (my english sucks!)
and 4 fire balls in the same areas and the same rounds, but of 4 different sources... do it stack? (yes... my english really sucks!)
4 fireballs yes, thats 4 different casters, aiming at the same 5" area, with 4 instantaneous abilities, nor will they hit at the same time (same round yes) but same time no, and 4 different berry bombs spells? or just 4 of the bombs? 4 dif spells yes, (also i want to post i think u meant the acorn grenade's. which is a yes as long as you follow the rules of that spell. i could be wrong as i'm not the best rule interpreter there is
As long as the effects are from different sources/instances, the damage is cumulative. I could see a burning skeleton's +1d6 fire damage on melee attacks stacking with a flaming weapon's +1d6 fire damage (+2d6 fire damage with the flaming melee weapon), but that would be a special case instead of a general rule, IMO.
However, just about every other case of multiple sources/instances (such as multiple fireballs, fire seed acorns/berries, alchemist bombs, etc.) would be resisted/saved against separately (as appropriate) by RAW, so "stacking" is probably not the best word to use. See the description of energy resistance on pg. 562-563 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook: "A creature with resistance to energy has the ability (usually extraordinary) to ignore some damage of a certain type per attack, but does not have total immunity." (emphasis mine)
I suppose you could extrapolate area/damage increases from simultaneous "explosions" in near proximity based on existing engineering formulae (it's not as simple as just adding them together), but does the game really need the increase in complexity?