Does the Spell 'Trial of Fire and Acid' stack with itself?

[WombattheDaniel]

Could I cast it on the same subject the next round and have them take 2d6 fire and 2d6 electricity/round?. Just curious. Didn't see yes, didn't see no.

Trial of Fire and Acid

[Grey_Mage]

Effects like damage wouldn't stack. The only thing that would change is the second spells duration would run concurrently with the first so the effect could be extended. (a new 1 rnd / lvl effective the round the second one is cast).

[mplindustries]

I can't figure out why it wouldn't stack, but yeah, Trial of Fire and Acid deals fire and acid, not electricity.

Edit: I do not mean stack as in, it deals 2d6 Acid and 2d6 Fire for the purpose of overcoming energy resistance, I meant stack as in both effects would run concurrently and they'd take 1d6 fire and 1d6 acid twice.

[Blakmane]

Probably not, although I'm sure you could create a case to argue. I originally thought it would stack fine, but I think the following rule means only your last applied spell will have any effect:

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.

Then it just comes down to whether damage is an 'effect', which I think it probably is. Your spell gives variable damage, so the rule above is applicable and they don't stack.

Someone already mentioned the acid/electricity so I won't go there ;-)

[Dave Justus]

They wouldn't stack, as in become a single source of 2d6 of each type of damage, but I believe they would both effect the creature. so someone who had this cast on them twice would take 1d6 fire + 1d6 acid + 1d6 fire + 1d6 acid (this matters a lot if they have a resistance.)

It isn't really any different than if cast acid arrow and then this spell on them...both effects are happening.

[Grey_Mage]

"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."

As a GM, I could be convinced to let you roll twice for damage and take the higher result, but the damage itself wouldn't stack to 2d6. I think this makes more sense also considering the effect can be ended early by a saving throw (did it end one spell or both? what if they had differing DC's?) Allowing both to do it's thing without damage stacking makes the most sense.

[mplindustries]

Grey_Mage wrote:

I think this makes more sense also considering the effect can be ended early by a saving throw (did it end one spell or both? what if they had differing DC's?) Allowing both to do it's thing without damage stacking makes the most sense.

It actually can't be ended early by a save. You save each round to halve the damage for that round only. Once you're touched, you take the full duration and roll each round to save for half, unless it's dispelled.

[WombattheDaniel]

Electricity lol. Critical fumble. Yeah all that makes sense. I could see rolling 2d6 and taking the higher damage. This is actually a pretty nice spell, before resistances have really begun to pile on. That, and it allows no Spell Resistance and it's a Fort save instead of a reflex save, so no Evasion. Feels more like a 2nd-level spell, though. Maybe that's just me.

[CripDyke]

1 target, damage spread out over multiple rounds, requires a touch attack...

Yeah, this really feels like a 2nd level spell. The only thing that doesn't feel like a 2nd level spell is the "save each round" feature.

But, really, what's the difference? It's not more powerful. As creatures become more and more likely to make their saves against the spell, the spell consistently does 1/2 damage with an occasional round dealing a bit more.

Having the save be per-round **feels** more powerful, but in actuality makes the spell less dangerous by making it more predictable.

If your save sucks, you can count on it doing 2d6/round. Yeah, you don't have that one chance to save your ass with a single d20, but you were unlikely to make it anyway.

At moderate levels, say 5th to 8th, you can count on it doing about 3d6 per 2 rounds, and the predictability of it aids your defenses greatly.

Take all that and add the fact that simple WATER ends the effect, and water is easy to get at any level, and this really needs to be a 2nd level spell.

[WombattheDaniel]

^ This.

Looking more at this thread, I actually have some more questions. Not saying anyone would waste a 4th-level spell slot on it, but how would Elemental Spell affect the damage? Would it change both types of damage, or could you choose one to change and keep the other? If you changed it to cold or electricity, would water still douse it?

[Bob Bob Bob]

So as others have said, doesn't stack with itself. Elemental spell would..."You may replace a spell’s normal damage with that energy type or split the spell’s damage, so that half is of that energy type and half is of its normal type." The spell's normal damage is 1d6 fire and 1d6 acid, you could replace that with 1d6 <whatever> and 1d6 <also whatever> or 1d6/2 fire, 1d6/2 acid, and 2*1d6/2 <whatever> (I think). Water would still end the effect (because it's part of the spell, not part of the damage type). A cold-substituted fireball still sets things on fire... with cold damage. Somehow. Because that's what it says it does.

[the_move]

Is it actually intentional that this spell can not be used on constructs, since the 'object' clause is missing.