|
Ok this might seem silly but I need to know if I understand this or if I'm misreading this. In the core rule book a monk who is level 13 gets spell resistance equal to his level plus 10. Also in the advance race guide a dwarf can get spell resistance of 5 plus his level if he gives up hardy and in the core book it says spell resistance doesn't stack but it does over lap. So if a dwarf monk who took spell resistance instead of hardy and is level 13 monk would he have two spell resistance one being 23 from the monk sr and the other being 18 from the dwarf sr that someone lets say an enemy has to go thru both in other to affect him with spells or spell like abilities?
Only the higher one would apply.
The rules seem a little fuzzy to me.
He would only have the benefit of the highest SR.
But he might not be able to switch it off(standard action to lower and to keep lowered). So he could only lower his SR to 18 from the dwarf. Unless he is granted an extra standard action for a round.
(^^That includes some speculation)
The general rule/usual way it's done is "just use the highest", when things overlap; DR, energy resistance, bonuses of the same type(except dodge).
No, he doesn't have to switch them both off to receive a beneficial spell - no matter how many sources of spell resistance he has, they all combine into one spell resistance for the character, the amount of which is equal to whichever source gives him the highest resistance. The dwarf monk in the OP would have just one spell resistance of 23, and he could switch that off (i.e. he would have NO spell resistance) with a single Standard action.
No, he doesn't have to switch them both off to receive a beneficial spell - no matter how many sources of spell resistance he has, they all combine into one spell resistance for the character, the amount of which is equal to whichever source gives him the highest resistance. The dwarf monk in the OP would have just one spell resistance of 23, and he could switch that off (i.e. he would have NO spell resistance) with a single Standard action.
...plus standard actions to keep it suppressed on following rounds.
But that is what I expected, and how I would play it.
The rules aren't fuzzy, the OP answered his own question.
--in the core book it says spell resistance doesn't stack but it does over lap
So, in this case, the Dwarf Monk would have Dwarf SR (5+LVL) until level 13. Then it would increase to Monk SR (10+LVL) because that one's better.
I can see confusion if you think of SR like a forcefield. You might look too deep into the rules and see two forcefields that overlap. Mechanically, it becomes the higher forcefield only. Not both.
Spell resistance does not stack, but it does overlap.
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 (Note: This is defined in many spells, abilities, and feats as "overlapping", but never given a definition of terms in the Glossary AFAIK). 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.
Bolded note mine for clarity which is admittedly not RAW, but clearly RAI.
Yes, that's one of my annoyances with the layout of the Core Rulebook. Stacking is a very important concept, but it's very hard to find unless you already know where to look - nobody initially thinks to look in the introductory chapter "Getting Started" for stacking rules.
Stacking deserves its own section and should appear in the index, too.
overlap means the higher replaces the lesser version
But he still has both effects, if one is suppressed the lesser should take over. Right?
Example: Transmuter's Physical Enhancement(Su)
he has a belt of [discriptive word] constitution +4
he chooses +3 for constitution(as a backup, expecting AMFs or whatever)
He still has both bonuses, suppressing the belt with an AMF would have his class ability "take over".
I agree, DM Blake. I used a PRD search to find it, then scrolled up to see where the heck it was.
Stacking and Overlapping should be defined and listed under "Additional Rules", methinks.
overlap means the higher replaces the lesser version
But he still has both effects, if one is suppressed the lesser should take over. Right?
Example: Transmuter's Physical Enhancement(Su)
he has a belt of [discriptive word] constitution +4
he chooses +3 for constitution(as a backup, expecting AMFs or whatever)He still has both bonuses, suppressing the belt with an AMF would have his class ability "take over".
In the case of SR, it's a good bet that whatever suppresses one effect would suppress the other. If you notice it's really hard to penetrate that Dwarf Monk's magical defenses, are you really going to know without metagaming to target each version of SR independently?
I was tailoring my response to his specific scenario. I then went back and edited it to the exact reference, since he asked.
In your specific scenario, an AMF also suppresses the (Su). Only (Ex) functions within an AMF. Now, that (Su) cannot be dispelled because it's not a spell or spell-like (perhaps that's what you were thinking?)
That is so stupid. Penalties can stack yet bonuses can't? One sr is from being a dwarf which is racial and the other one is from the class monk so you would think they would stack for a dwarf monk.
3.5 has some weird stacking rules for SR: take the highest and add +1 to +4 for each lower depending on how high they are.
overlap means the higher replaces the lesser version
But he still has both effects, if one is suppressed the lesser should take over. Right?
Example: Transmuter's Physical Enhancement(Su)
he has a belt of [discriptive word] constitution +4
he chooses +3 for constitution(as a backup, expecting AMFs or whatever)He still has both bonuses, suppressing the belt with an AMF would have his class ability "take over".
In the case of SR, it's a good bet that whatever suppresses one effect would suppress the other. If you notice it's really hard to penetrate that Dwarf Monk's magical defenses, are you really going to know without metagaming to target each version of SR independently?
I was tailoring my response to his specific scenario. I then went back and edited it to the exact reference, since he asked.
In your specific scenario, wouldn't the AMF supress the (Su) as well? I thought only (Ex) got past AMF?
AMF: you're right - "... supernatural abilities may be temporarily nullified bu the field." I don't like the word 'may' in rules. But then greater dispel magic, or mage's disjunction(only mentions spells and spell-like.
The thing that suppresses the SR is himself using a standard action to do so each round it's suppressed, and with two SR you might need two standard actions to suppress. <- at least that's my point by RAW, I wouldn't play it like that.
That is so stupid. Penalties can stack yet bonuses can't? One sr is from being a dwarf which is racial and the other one is from the class monk so you would think they would stack for a dwarf monk.
Indeed. There's lots of things that don't play nice in Pathfinder. Think of it this way: You start out with no SR. As in, you don't have the ability. The Dwarf race gives you a way to get this ability, at a certain scaling number. The Monk class gives you an alternative way to get the SAME ability, but at a higher scaling number.
If you gain an ability from two different sources, you don't increase the base or bonus just because you had two sources that qualify.
That would be like saying a Bard/Sorcerer with Detect Magic should have his CL for "overlapping" spells increased by +1 because he has two different ways to learn it. It just doesn't make sense.
AMF: you're right - "... supernatural abilities may be temporarily nullified bu the field." I don't like the word 'may' in rules. But then greater dispel magic, or mage's disjunction(only mentions spells and spell-like.
If you look at the Supernatural Ability description it says "will not function in an AMF". Is that finite enough for you?
The thing that suppresses the SR is himself using a standard action to do so each round it's suppressed, and with two SR you might need two standard actions to suppress. <- at least that's my point by RAW, I wouldn't play it like that.
No, by RAW he has two sources of SR that overlap (which is a term undefined by the CRB and might be worthy of an FAQ). Since it's undefined, common sense tells us to use stacking rules since SR mentions stacking.
In this case I would rule that SR is SR, no matter how many sources of it you are. One standard action to bring down both "walls". What if I'm a half-dwarf half-drow Monk with the appropriate racials? Do I have to take 3 standard actions to drop all of my SR (5+LVL Dwarf, 11+LVL Drow, 10+LVL Monk)? no.
That is so stupid. Penalties can stack yet bonuses can't? One sr is from being a dwarf which is racial and the other one is from the class monk so you would think they would stack for a dwarf monk.
That would be overpowered to the point of being godlike. The character would have 2xLEVEL + 15 SR = 41 SR. A spellcaster trying to beat that SR would need to be level 21 to have a 5% chance (rolling a natural 20) or level 30 to have a 50/50 chance.
Even a level 20 wizard would never, ever, EVER beat that SR 41. NEVER.
Do you really want a level 13 dwarf monk to avoid EVERY spell that allows SR that is ever used against him by anything below EPIC levels?
There is a VERY good reason SR does not stack. It would break the game completely if it stacked.
Consider what Level + 10 really means: Any time a level 13 monk faces a spellcaster or monster with SU ability that is an appropriate challenge (e.g. CR 13), that enemy must roll 1d20 and add it's caster level (which will be right around 13) to the roll to beat the SR 23 of the monk. That means that most enemies will succeed if they roll about a 10 and fail if they roll lower.
In other words, SR Level + 10 means that almost all enemies will fail half of their spells against anyone with this SR. Basically, it's a 50/50 chance to avoid almost all spellcaster nastiness.
Giving any more than that, through stacking or through better versions of SR, would be very much overpowered.
|
|
I looked at it this way like he had one sr from being a dwarf and other from being a monk so it would be two seperate sr on him and you have to beat each one to get thru so hince the overlapping. So a spellcaster only has to beat an sr 23, then an sr 18 to get his spell thru to hit the dwarf monk. That would be how I interpret the sr overlapping, since sr can't stack but can overlap.
AMF: you're right - "... supernatural abilities may be temporarily nullified bu the field." I don't like the word 'may' in rules. But then greater dispel magic, or mage's disjunction(only mentions spells and spell-like.If you look at the Supernatural Ability description it says "will not function in an AMF". Is that finite enough for you?
Yes. But that still leaves GDM and disjunction, where at least GDM can't dispel (su). I think.
The thing that suppresses the SR is himself using a standard action to do so each round it's suppressed, and with two SR you might need two standard actions to suppress. <- at least that's my point by RAW, I wouldn't play it like that.No, by RAW he has two sources of SR that overlap (which is a term undefined by the CRB and might be worthy of an FAQ). Since it's undefined, common sense tells us to use stacking rules since SR mentions stacking.
In this case I would rule that SR is SR, no matter how many sources of it you are. One standard action to bring down both "walls". What if I'm a half-dwarf half-drow Monk with the appropriate racials? Do I have to take 3 standard actions to drop all of my SR (5+LVL Dwarf, 11+LVL Drow, 10+LVL Monk)? no.
(emph mine)
Common sense and RAW don't play well together, they may not even be on speaking terms. And it mentions that it doesn't stack, so why use stacking rules.I agree: no, one action to lower all SR. I that is how I would play.
But it's not clear from the rules.
I think we agree on this...
I looked at it this way like he had one sr from being a dwarf and other from being a monk so it would be two seperate sr on him and you have to beat each one to get thru so hince the overlapping. So a spellcaster only has to beat an sr 23, then an sr 18 to get his spell thru to hit the dwarf monk. That would be how I interpret the sr overlapping, since sr can't stack but can overlap.
More like: if he beats 23 it also punches through the 18. I think it's also just one role with multiple targets/missiles, like magic missile. One CL-check per casting.
|
|
Spell resistance does not stack, but it does overlap.
PRD, Getting Started, Stacking wrote:
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 (Note: This is defined in many spells, abilities, and feats as "overlapping", but never given a definition of terms in the Glossary AFAIK). 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.
Take it this is the only form of explanation for overlapping and we have to go with this. Still don't see why they even want to bring up overlapping at the end of the sentence about sr when they could have just finished the sentence at sr doesn't stack.
It just makes me wonder if the person who wrote this in the core book if they didn't want to mean something else and thats why they added overlap but guess we wont know unless paizo is asked directly.
Spell resistance does not stack, but it does overlap.
PRD, Getting Started, Stacking wrote:
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 (Note: This is defined in many spells, abilities, and feats as "overlapping", but never given a definition of terms in the Glossary AFAIK). 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.Take it this is the only form of explanation for overlapping and we have to go with this. Still don't see why they even want to bring up overlapping at the end of the sentence about sr when they could have just finished the sentence at sr doesn't stack.
It just makes me wonder if the person who wrote this in the core book if they didn't want to mean something else and thats why they added overlap but guess we wont know unless paizo is asked directly.
Correct. Overlapping is mentioned in many abilities, but left undefined separately. Stack is defined, but only in terms of bonuses and penalties. Not abilities and spells.
I think a definitive answer needs to be inserted somewhere in the "Special Abilities" paragraph that says "Stacking abilities uses the same rule as stacking bonuses/penalties, see pg. X". Further, inside the stacking reference, they need to define the sentence "Generally speaking....only the highest bonus counts" as overlapping. Since that's the unofficial, unwritten rule.
Just be careful we don't start digging too deep and defining overlap as stack. For instance, the one who thinks a Dwarf Monk has two "bubbles" of SR that need punched through is incorrect. That would be stacking, and SR specifically says it doesn't. The "bubbles" do not both count.
|
|
Stacking is defined as adding the two sr which one would be 18 from being a dwarf and sr 23 from being a monk for a total stacking bonus of sr41, but stacking isn't allowed, but overlap is allowed. What we don't know is what they mean by overlap and if it means he has two bubbles that means its easier for a mage to roll on the first bubble to penetrateit and then on second bubble to roll to penetrate that since the roll is easier to get if the bubbles are 23 and 18 instead of trying to roll against a 41. I'm trying to get paizo developers to give me a ruling on this since for some unknown reason they wanted to say overlaping is allowed but stacking isnt for sr when they could have just ended the sentence with sr doesn't allow stacking so you use the higher of the multiple sr only. Why they wanted to add overlap and say its allowed we have no idea.
|
|
See I see stacking as adding of stuff like 1 plus 1 equals 2. In this way the 18 and 23 would become a 41 sr but what if the 18 was a bubble of its own and the 23 a bubble of its own then you wouldn't be adding the two numbers or bonuses together and by this wouldn't be stacking according to how they define stacking. Couldn't this be called overlapping since you are having two different bubbles protecting the same host? Kind of like having to active security systems protecting the same house each ran by a different company. They protect the same house granted but each one is independent of the other. The down side I'm seeing with the two bubble concept is the problem it would cause for the monk as far as being healed by friend allies since they two have to go thru the bubbles. Although it doesn't affect him from using potions or other items or ways to heal himself.
Barry you should see my other thread on concealment bonuses.