| 8 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Simple question, do multiple castings of resist energy stack. As in can i cast it multiple times to gain resistance to fire, cold, electricity and acid. I ask because my party is about to fight a buch of elementals and the druid wants to cast the communal version four times, giving everyone in the party ER 30 vs everything.
I ask because I dont know if you can only have this spell cast once on you, and each successive casting replaces the older version. Or that each casting counts as a separate buff, thus allowing all to be sustained at once.Currently in game so if anyone has a speedy answer to this, i would be very appreciative.
Thank you for your help.
Here's your answer.
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.
Thank you :)
I know of no rule anywhere that indicates that you may not have multiple Resist Energy spells up protecting vs. different energy types. It nowhere states anything that would even hint at this in the wording of the spell itself, so I think you're good to go.
Here's your answer.
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.
But I don't believe it IS the Same Effect with Differing Results. That would be something along the line of Blessing of Fervor. You couldn't gain the benefit of more than one of those at a time, but that doesn't look the same to me as Resist Energy, in which you choose different effects at the outset.
It is the same effect because it is always protecting against energy damage. The varying affect is the specific energy damage it protects against so the last energy type should be the one that matters. That is my RAW reading of it anyway.
The trouble is that irrelevant doesn't apply there. Irrelevant would be, say, a CL 3 resist energy (fire) and a CL 20 resist energy (fire). Both are technically active, but one is irrelevant.
Multiple resist energy spells are fine. Generally you can have multiple instances of the same spell up anyway, even if they do the same thing. In this case they're even doing different things.
The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once.(emphasis added)
Is it the same spell? Yes.
Is the chosen/desired effect different? Yes.
Is it being applied to the same recipient more than once? Yes.
I disagree.
It is not 'the same effect with differing results'
(this is good for two different spells that both provide differing levels of Fire Resistance, for example)
It is 'the same spell with differing effects'...that's perfectly valid to stack. (1 effect to Resist Fire, 1 to Resist Acid, etc)
If I get hit twice with Bestow Curse, once to give me -6 to an ability score, and once to give me -4 to hit, I'd expect to have to suffer both effects (and if I get hit with it again to give me -6 to a different ability score...I am a very unhappy camper indeed).
"Become irrelevant" means they are no longer active. It is similar to wearing 3 magical rings. All 3 are still magical, but only 2 of them can have an affect on the game world. In the case of this spell only the last effect really matters.
You can have multiple Resist Energy's going at the same time. That quote is more for things like multiple baleful polymorph's cast on you.
You can have multiple Resist Energy's going at the same time. That quote is more for things like multiple baleful polymorph's cast on you.
I have run it that way before, but I can't find a rules quote to support it.
I think it works, and I think it is both RAW and RAI for the same reasons SteelDraco mentioned.
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.
Even if we assume that this a case of "same spell with varying results" everyone is ignoring the fact that the next line begins with the word "Usually". As in not always. This to me says that sometimes their effects don't become irrelevant. Much the way resist electricity 20 isn't irrelevant just because you now have resist cold 20.
That's my reading anyway.
- Torger
I read "usually" as "unless otherwise stated".
I read "usually" as "unless otherwise stated".
Yup, that's reasonable.
I on the other hand read it as "There will be times this rule doesn't make sense. Use your own discretion."
In this case I feel the litmus test should be do the effects become irrelevant?
- Torger
I read "usually" as "unless otherwise stated".You mean as opposed to "Unless you don't like this rule"?
I already allow it in my games, which I stated upthread, but that has no bearing on my arguments in the rule forum. Me allowing something at home, and thinking the book supports it are two different things.
I read "usually" as "unless otherwise stated".Yup, that's reasonable.
I on the other hand read it as "There will be times this rule doesn't make sense. Use your own discretion."
In this case I feel the litmus test should be do the effects become irrelevant?
- Torger
It does not seem to be broken or overpowered at my table, and I also think your interpretation of "Use your own discretion." is also valid.
I do admit I could be wrong on my official reading of the rule. It has come up before. I will try to search for a more official answer.
|
My opinion is that a character can only have one resist energy active at a time, per application of the spell interaction section. I also think that it is a minority opinion and I typically bow to the majority opinion during most play situations. The rare situations where I have applied the "there can be only one," ruling has been where it is particularly thematic and have given players a lot of advance notice and foreshadowing. My experience is that players can plan effectively if they have the info, but no one likes surprises being sprung on them.
It largely becomes a "go along to get along" thing; whether my interpretation is correct in this matter is much less important than providing an enjoyable game. It's a corner case that rarely comes up, and is one of those things that is primarily wanted and possible by PCs rather than NPCs/critters. Because GMs in any environment other than PFS have an option on how they choose and/or modify encounters, and this can dramatically change the threat level of a given multi-energy encounter, some care needs to be executed if using the "there can be only one" interpretation.
BTW, a related topic for me involves potions of lesser restoration, which formally should come in ability types defining what ability they restore, since all decisions about a potions functions have to be decided by the creator. But, playing culture and lots of published adventures don't expect nor present them this way. Sometimes being right about a rare corner case just isn't worth the angst.
In this case I feel the litmus test should be do the effects become irrelevant?
- Torger
I totally agree.
Please quote from the official PRD, not a third party knock off site known for rewording things.
I can see the wording being written with different numeric rolls in mind (RAI) as "varying effects", but I can also see how the wording could mean varying as in different effects like fire/electricty/etc in this case (after all, Resist Energy could have been written like the Protection From spells, as fully different spells, and avoided this whole discussion, but wasn't IIRC).
I'm inclined to think (hope) that it's the former writing, but I can see how some people are arguing the latter, and as this is something that could effect PFS, I feel my FAQ button trigger finger getting itchy already...
I totally agree.In this case I feel the litmus test should be do the effects become irrelevant?
- Torger
Except that there are very specific rules for that as well.
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.Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still active, but one has rendered the other useless in some fashion.
Because no game system has ever had redundant rules before?
- Torger
|
|
Please quote from the official PRD, not a third party knock off site known for rewording things.
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).
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.
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.
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.
One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant: Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still active, but one has rendered the other useless in some fashion.
Multiple Mental Control Effects: Sometimes magical effects that establish mental control render each other irrelevant, such as spells that remove the subject's ability to act. Mental controls that don't remove the recipient's ability to act usually do not interfere with each other. If a creature is under the mental control of two or more creatures, it tends to obey each to the best of its ability, and to the extent of the control each effect allows. If the controlled creature receives conflicting orders simultaneously, the competing controllers must make opposed Charisma checks to determine which one the creature obeys.
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.
Instantaneous Effects: Two or more spells with instantaneous durations work cumulatively when they affect the same target.
Taking it in detail with italics for commentary:
"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. this is the general rule Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, the spell description explains that effect. this is one exception Several other general rules apply when spells or magical effects operate in the same place:there are other exceptions, and the following general rules explain them and need to be interpreted; there may be differences in how people interpret them"
"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)." doesn't affect our discussion
"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." doesn't affect our discussion
"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." This affects our discussion to a degree, but becomes somewhat moot due to the following paragraph. For completeness: If someone is under the effect of resist energy (fire option) 20, and the receives a resist energy (fire option) 10, only the resist energy (fire option) 20 will be in effect. If there were two resist energy (fire option) 10, only one would be in effect. At question is whether resist energy (cold option) 10 and resist energy (fire option) 10 are identical, and that will be subject to interpretation. Is the threshold at the name of the spell, or does the threshold include the energy type selected? Were the spells named resist fire and resist cold (something that could certainly be researched), there would be no debate
"Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. this addresses the topic directly. Resist energy is the same spell as resist energy. Resist energy can produce varying effects (for example, cold and fire). Unlike in the prior example, the word identical doesn't appear, so that point becomes moot. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others.Usually. This is then the standard. The burden of proof that both resist energy (fire) and resist energy (cold) can be active at the same time now falls to those who think resist energy is an exception to "usually." None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts."
"One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant: Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still active, but one has rendered the other useless in some fashion." This doesn't affect our discussion, nor do the sections that follow. For brevity, the balance of the rules section is omitted.