I would say that each different energy type should be considered a separate effect so that you can protect yourself from multiple energy types.
I agree.
|
I hold the position that only the most recent is in effect. It is an unpopular opinion that is contrary to how most approach it or expect it. I think it's pretty clear from a rules analysis perspective, but that the idea is so remote to most playing experience as to render the actual rule moot.
If permitting only one effective spell at a time, it can really change the nature of some pre published adventures. Make sure everyone knows about it in advance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hold the position that only the most recent is in effect. It is an unpopular opinion that is contrary to how most approach it or expect it. I think it's pretty clear from a rules analysis perspective, but that the idea is so remote to most playing experience as to render the actual rule moot.
If permitting only one effective spell at a time, it can really change the nature of some pre published adventures. Make sure everyone knows about it in advance.
I agree with nearly every part of this post. I hold to the position that from a rules analysis perspective you're right. The most recent effect is the only one that should work... I think its a rare instance where the rule as written is clear and concise enough.
On the other hand from a game engineering perspective I don't think the rule as written is a good one. Not from a position that I could *logically* defend the idea. It just *feels* wrong. That could be a feeling thats a holdover from all of my years in 2e/palladium.
This seems to be a situation where 'bandwagon fallacy logic' actually wins... What feels right and what is written seems so starkly at odds. I've been 'trained' through past gaming experience to expect it to work. To me personally the idea that it wouldnt work seems like an 'alien paradigm shift'... and from a 'breaks the game' perspective the idea that the publisher decided it shouldnt work seems.... arbitrary at best.
Raw doesn't read like it should at all and hard to argue that it could.
Rai it seems like it should
I dont think it breaks the game that it would.
I'd allow it.
That could be a feeling thats a holdover from all of my years in 2e/palladium.
Either that or the fact that pathfinder is such a 'stacky/quadratic' system overall that its shocking to find things that dont.
My interpretation of a spell with 'varying effects' would be something like two Disguise Self spells to make you look like two different people. In this case it makes sense that the second casting replaces the first.
|
I think this makes more sense in the context of the whole section.
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.
For example, Resist Energy (fire) at CL 3 and 7. It doesn't matter which one was cast first, the CL 7 applies because it has greater strength.
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./quote]
Clearly, the order in which spells are cast isn't the end-all of the matter. And notice the word "usually": it implies some interpretation is needed. If the result would be bizarre, this might be the case that's not usual.
Protection from Energy (fire) and Resist Energy (fire) is an example of irrelevance in action. But resisting fire doesn't make resisting acid irrelevant.
What do you think "Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others" mean, then? When does spell order matter? If they're providing the same effect, the bigger one takes priority. If they're providing different effects, there's no conflict so you get both.
|
|
Raised in a game tonight. Can you have multiple Resist Energy spells cast on you giving you protection against multiple forms of energy.
A player raised the following rule from Stacking Effects.
"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've always played that you can use multiple castings to protect youself against a range of energies but this was a new interpretation for me.
Any comments would be welcome. I ruled that effectively they were different variations on "Resist Energy" and that your could use multiples so long as they were different energy types but couldn't find anything to clarify it.
Same effect, not same spell. The effect is "energy resistance 10 against fire", it don't stack but overlap with "energy resistance 20 against fire" and don't interact at all with "energy resistance 10 against acid" as that is a completely different effect.
The source of the effect don't matter, it can come from a ring of energy resistance: fire, from a racial ability or a spell, what matter is teh effect.
|
|
What do you think "Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others" mean, then? When does spell order matter? If they're providing the same effect, the bigger one takes priority. If they're providing different effects, there's no conflict so you get both.
What is the meaning of Usually? Generally, mos of the time, etc. it is not "always".
And you should start with the title of the section: Same Effect with Differing Results. different energy resit aren't the same effect.
Then you should continue to:
None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.
Key word: irrelevant. Energy resistance acid 10 don't make energy resistance 10 irrelevant, it is a new instance of energy resistance acid 10 (or more) that make the earlier energy resistance acid 10 irrelevant.
When you have to energy resistance of the same kind on the same target they overlap, regardless of the source.
Multiple castings would not undo previous castings. The spells would all have effect, although if providing the same effect the bonuses would not stack. If for some reason the higher effect were dispelled the lower effect might then come into play.
Example: PCs come across a red dragon. PC Sorcerer casts Resist Energy (fire) on himself at 12th caster level. PC Ranger casts Communal Resist Energy (fire) on the entire party at 9th caster level. The Sorcerer would have resistance 30 against fire although the rest of the party would have resistance 20. If the Sorcerer's Resist Energy spell were dispelled, he would still have fire resistance 20 from the Ranger's spell.
There are many examples in published adventures of enemies casting/having multiple instances of energy resistance (often from the same type of spell). I think the intent is rather obvious.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes interpretations really can be wrong.
Speaking of getting long in the tooth, is those people that say if you don't agree with them you are wrong.
The definition of RAW is running the rules as written as you interpret them. If you differ in interpretation, you may be wrong. But until you get a clarification, you shouldn't tell other people their interpretation is wrong.
Resist energy (cold) is not the same spell as resist energy (fire). That's why the magic section specifically says you don't have to memorize each version of the spell, but can choose the version when it is cast.
I...do you...do you...what? You just contradicted yourself.
Protection from evil and protection from chaos are different spells. Resist energy (cold) and resist energy (fire) are not even spells. Resist energy is a spell. Different effects of the same spell does not make an entirely new spell. Pyrotechnics has two different options for what effects take place. That doesn't mean it is two different spells. It is one spell that has the ability to do more than one thing.
What even is your argument.
Using resist energy to protect you from fire and using resist energy to protect you from cold are two choices for the same spell. They are different versions of one spell. They are not different spells.
Correct, but they are still the same spell. Just different versions of the same spell. If they were different spells you would have to learn them independently of each other.
Just to make it clear that you don't have to choose one over the other when preparing.
Resist energy is one spell. Resist energy (cold) is not a spell. Period. This entire argument is ridiculous. I don't even disagree with your main point, but your understanding of what defines different spells is wrong.
You only need to learn one spell in order to cast it, regardless of the fact that it can have multiple, distinct effects. It is the same spell, regardless of what version of it is used.
What does that mean for the OP? I'm undecided, to be honest. Currently I would rule that since they're different versions I would allow them to both be in effect at the same time, and while I understand the opposing view, I think that's a little word nitpicky.
But in no way shape or form does that make them different spells. They are both the same spell. Just different versions of the same spell. I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove. Your entire line of reasoning seems flippant.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
'Expect table variance' doesn't actually provide any useful information, all it means is that some people might run it like you, some people might run it like me. And some of those people will be wrong.
Wouldn't it be better for us to try and figure out which group that is rather than just 'Expect table variance'?
I agree with your first sentence.
I don't agree with the second. Saying "Expect Table Variance" is ceding that there can be no agreement, because the debate is over the meaning of the words.
Again, I'm not talking about "Doesn't my DEX add to HP" type thing. The Dex to HP guy can't show you a line that proves his side. I'm talking about the situations where one side says "line blah means true" and the other side says "but line bleh means false". They both have rules text they believe proves their side. It doesn't convince the other side.
I've been on here long enough to recognize and remember previous back and forth debates. When I say Expect Table Variance, it typically means this can't be proved to the satisfaction of most.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
some adventures involve NPCs casting spells in such a manner.
Some adventures have raging undead barbarians.
Some stat blocks have way too many feats.
Some adventures tell you to cast spells in Anti Magic zones.
Basically just because an adventure says something works a particular way, doesn't prove it works that way, should work that way, etc.
|
some adventures involve NPCs casting spells in such a manner.Some adventures have raging undead barbarians.
They've errataed that to be legal now, or so I hear.
In any event, if you had not edited my post it would still show that statement to be supporting the previous statement, not attempting to be justification by itself.
Fire resistance and acid resistance are still different effects caused by the same spell and not subject to the rules the OP referenced.
|
|
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.
"Usually" means not always. In this case fire resistance doesn't make acid resistance irrelevant, so this is not one of the usual cases.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
They've errataed [raging undead] to be legal now
Fire resistance and acid resistance are still different effects caused by the same spell
Yes they have, but you missed my point.
Just because it was in an adventure before it was fixed, doesn't mean it was correct at the time. It is correct now however, due to errata.
So, likewise, an adventure using Fire and Acid resistance from two castings of Resist Energy don't make it correct.
I believe same effect with different results applies to spells like mirror image. You can't stack three images with two to make five images; the most recent casting overrides the previous.
I do not think energy resistance (acid) and energy resistance (fire) constitute the same effect.
+1
I hold the position that only the most recent is in effect. It is an unpopular opinion that is contrary to how most approach it or expect it. I think it's pretty clear from a rules analysis perspective, but that the idea is so remote to most playing experience as to render the actual rule moot.
If permitting only one effective spell at a time, it can really change the nature of some pre published adventures. Make sure everyone knows about it in advance.
This FAQ disagrees with that conclusion.
More to the point, the faq says this:
This doesn't violate the general rule for stacking penalties--each evil eye effect is basically a different source, even though they stem from the evil eye hex (the evil eye hex is much like 5 separate weak hexes under a common umbrella). In the same way that multiple castings of bestow curse on the same target should stack as long as they do different things (penalize Strength, penalize Dex, penalize attack rolls, take no action, and so on), multiple uses of the evil eye hex stack as long as they're targeting different game statistics.
Now, I'm sure we can all agree that faqs aren't based on what the rules actually say, but it's still a good argument to dig up if someone tries to say it's supposed to work like James wants it to, and you want it differently.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
What percentage of stat blocks do you think actually have rules errors in the official material?
Well more than you would think. Stat blocks and combat strategy are mostly written by writers. Creative people who may not, in fact probably are not, well versed with the intricacies of the rules.
All the ones I've seen in the past have taught me to keep in mind that the probably a stat block is wrong is so high, that you are doing a disservice to the rules if you use a stat block.
You either have not had the same experience, or have never pondered why stat blocks violate your rules understanding and tried to mold your understanding to the stat blocks. Which one?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
supposed to work like James wants it to
You are putting words in my mouth. So let me be clear.
I don't like this interpretation. I'd much prefer to go into combat with Acid and Fire protection because the Dragon breathes fire and the Ooze on the ground does Acid damage.
I've been blocked from doing so at most every table, so much that I just naturally block myself because I don't want to deal with asking if I can from the GM and being told the typical "no".
So who would be happiest to see a FAQ saying "You can have Resist Fire and Resist Acid simultaneously"? Me.
I think a very novel reading of RAW would say no. But RAI I believe is yes that they stack, and I will always allow so at my table.
I think a very novel reading of RAW would say no. But RAI I believe is yes that they stack, and I will always allow so at my table.
Are you sure that you want to use the word 'stack' in that sentence? /ducks the brick wall suddenly appearing.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
'So high'? How high? I think ~5%, is it more or less than that? 1%? 10%?
If you say any error, then 60% or more. Most all stat blocks have some kind of error. Too low or too high bonus to skills. Other errors. Major errors.
If you say "major errors only", then yea 1-5% is a fine number.
supposed to work like James wants it toYou are putting words in my mouth. So let me be clear.
I don't like this interpretation. I'd much prefer to go into combat with Acid and Fire protection because the Dragon breathes fire and the Ooze on the ground does Acid damage.
I've been blocked from doing so at most every table, so much that I just naturally block myself because I don't want to deal with asking if I can from the GM and being told the typical "no".
So who would be happiest to see a FAQ saying "You can have Resist Fire and Resist Acid simultaneously"? Me.
Sorry about that. I was out of line, trying to be fascetious, but looking over it again, that was very badly put of me.