Absolutely you can do this, both would be in effect. There is no rule anywhere saying that you cannot overlap multiple area of effects.
For most spells I would absolutely agree with Ravingdork. For these spells I still suspect he is correct. The only caveat I would have is that these are conjuration(creation) spells, which use magic to create an object or creature. In this case the 'fog' is the object. Obviously, unlike most objects, other objects can interpenetrate fog with no difficulty (except for the solid fog of course.) The question though is, can two fogs (magical or not) exist in the same place. This isn't really a question about spell effects, it is a question about how vapor interacts with other vapors in the game system.
The rules are silent on this, and it would be an area for GM interpretation. Personally I would certainly allow multiple fog spells to stack and interpenetrate in most cases, both a stinking cloud and cloud kill could effect the same square. I might hesitate at solid fog, deciding it was too dense to be interpenetrated by other fogs.
The question though is, can two fogs (magical or not) exist in the same place. This isn't really a question about spell effects, it is a question about how vapor interacts with other vapors in the game system.
Simply put, the game system doesn't directly address the issue (nor does it need to), makes no explicit mention of disallowing it, has lots of rules that imply that it is allowed, and I could probably cite a thousand real world examples of gaseous effects mixing within the same limited space (they just get more dense).
It's no different from having one fire in your house generating smoke, and having two fires in your house (or a fire and a detonated teargas bomb) generating even more smoke. The smoke just gets more dense, killing you faster (or burns out your eyes while you choke if you mix in teargas). There is a point where it becomes so dense that it cannot fit anymore gas without breaking the container, but for most game purposes, that's not likely to ever be an issue.
If gas couldn't share the same space in the game, then gaseous spells would ALSO suffocate their victims, since oxygen is a gas occupying the same space. In fact, oxygen and carbon dioxide could not share the same space in that case!
A GM who house rules thus just killed his campaign. :P
Can you create smoke in a fog bank?
Sure you can.
With very few exceptions, e.g. incendiary cloud, cloud spells can co-exist.
So go ahead, overlap a Stinking Cloud with a Cloudkill. Your party member will love you.
So go ahead, overlap a Stinking Cloud with a Cloudkill. Your party member will love you.
Well, that depends entirely on when and where you place it. A fighter eager to charge into the fray might feel cheated. A wizard caught in the area might later haunt you, rather than love you.
I would hardly expect any particular ruling on this by a GM to 'kill' a campaign. Only very unreasonable players would quit over such a thing, and it isn't something that comes up frequently in any case. I don't recall ever having to rule on it in many years of play.
As to how reasonable it would be in the real world, certainly you can have multiple vapors in one area. Fog is a particularly sense vapor though, formed from water vapors condensing around airborne particles (the basic fog spell would, if translated into 'real' science probably have to increase the humility in an area and magically create the solid particles). The fog in the game is already extremely thick, preventing all visibility beyond 5'. That is about as dense as fog is going to get in the real world, at some point fog is going to condense to the point where it precipitates out. The details of the science is fairly irrelevant though, this is a game and it's ability to simulate as well as the need to simulate reality perfectly is quire limited.
As I said in my original post, because it is a creation spell we are dealing with how objects interact and not how magic interacts. The game expects GMs to rule in a reasonable fashion as they see fit in such situations, a GM doing so is not 'house ruling' just ruling unless and until Paizo decides to publish rules concerning that sort of interaction. From a rules standpoint this is where it ends, it is up to GM interpretation and ruling either way would be equally valid as far as the rules are concerned. How to 'best' interpret it, and what criteria to use (real world physical interactions, game consistency and play ability, most fun) can certainly be argued, but other than the GM having final say, the rules certainly don't address those issues.
As an aside, the rules certainly support the concept of a certain degree of density preventing these spells from functioning in prohibiting then underwater, despite fact that other gasses, like oxygen and carbon dioxide certainly do exist (as gas, not just as part of other elements) in water.
In any event, as I said with the possible exception of solid fog I would personally freely allow the spells to interpenetrate. I am not sure if I would allow multiple versions of the same spell to have double effect (i.e. if you are in 2 overlapping clouds kills you have to save twice) or not, that I would probably want to think about.
So go ahead, overlap a Stinking Cloud with a Cloudkill. Your party member will love you.Well, that depends entirely on when and where you place it. A fighter eager to charge into the fray might feel cheated. A wizard caught in the area might later haunt you, rather than love you.
The /s was implied.
I would hardly expect any particular ruling on this by a GM to 'kill' a campaign. Only very unreasonable players would quit over such a thing, and it isn't something that comes up frequently in any case. I don't recall ever having to rule on it in many years of play.
The Stinking Cloud + Cloudkill combo is one I used against my group a few weeks ago. (As the DM.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would hardly expect any particular ruling on this by a GM to 'kill' a campaign. Only very unreasonable players would quit over such a thing, and it isn't something that comes up frequently in any case.
No, I don't mean players would rage quit, I mean all living characters and creatures in the GM's campaign would DIE due to the fact that oxygen and carbon dioxide could not occupy the same space at once. There would be roving pockets of "suffocation" all over the place.
The big limit is whether you still have line of sight to where you want to create your second cloud spell.
This is a very good point I hadn't considered. Lacking line of sight could absolutely make overlapping placement more difficult.
Cloud spells only require line-of-effect.
|
The big limit is whether you still have line of sight to where you want to create your second cloud spell.For spells you only have to have line of effect, not line of sight, if I'm not mistaken?
It turns out you can get by without line of sight, as long as you have a reasonably clear idea of where you want to cast:
Effect cloud spreads in 20-ft. radius, 20 ft. high
Effect: Some spells create or summon things rather than affecting things that are already present.
You must designate the location where these things are to appear, either by seeing it or defining it.