The general rule (as reflected in FAQs and developer commentary) is that effects like this only apply once per target even if hit by multiple missiles/beams.
Effect from the same source don't ever stack, at least with bonuses.
Penalties...I think they do actually stack.
The question really arises that this is all one spell, and whether or not you should be able to inflict the penalty multiple times on someone.
If you hit them with a dazing metamagic magic missile would they have to save multiple times or be dazed?
Personally, I think it's beyond the scope of power to inflict the penalty multiple times in a round from a single spell.
But I'm not sure there's anything in the rules to backup any position on this question.
I think this FAQ is directly applicable. and makes the case for it only taking effect once.
|
Regardless of any FAQ, the feat itself tells you - it says 'When a living creature takes damage from the affected spell'. This means it can only trigger once per damage dealing. While Magic Missile might be sending out multiple missiles, it all applies simultaneously, not sequentially. You would take the effect exactly once, nor once per missile.
For something like Acid Arrow for Flaming Sphere, though, which deals ongoing damage, you would apply the aging effect each time they took damage.
better yet a weapon like spell that has longer duration. like flame blade
Dazing flaming sphere is popular. I imagine Cherry Blossom Flaming Sphere would be equally as viable.
Effect from the same source don't ever stack, at least with bonuses.
Penalties...I think they do actually stack.
The question really arises that this is all one spell, and whether or not you should be able to inflict the penalty multiple times on someone.
If you hit them with a dazing metamagic magic missile would they have to save multiple times or be dazed?
Personally, I think it's beyond the scope of power to inflict the penalty multiple times in a round from a single spell.
But I'm not sure there's anything in the rules to backup any position on this question.
One thing to note is that Cherry Blossom Spell makes the spell in question do ability damage rather than impose a penalty.
I concur with YogoZuno's interpretation.
Ethiric shards (or spike/stone growth) is nasty. Ready an action, suddenly 12 stat damage out of nowhere, no save.
Also trial by fire and acid.
Ethiric shards (or spike/stone growth) is nasty. Ready an action, suddenly 12 stat damage out of nowhere, no save.
It would be 6 stat damage (two each in the three attributes you picked) and they do get a save. But repeated applications as you try to move out of Etheric Shards would be awful.
It would be 6 stat damage (two each in the three attributes you picked) and they do get a save. But repeated applications as you try to move out of Etheric Shards would be awful.Ethiric shards (or spike/stone growth) is nasty. Ready an action, suddenly 12 stat damage out of nowhere, no save.
I meant 12 as you're hitting them with a readied action as they move up so 6 instances of damage assuming they're moving 30 feet (one per square).
Also they only get a save if the spell the meta-magic is attached to does not allow a save. which etheric shards and trial by fire and acid do. Which means if you take any damage from the spell you always take the ability damage regardless of your save. hence the "No save"
When a living creature takes damage from the affected spell, that creature also takes 2 points of damage to Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution or 2 points of damage to Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma (your choice). If the spell does not normally allow a save, the target can attempt a Fortitude save to negate the effect.
Compare to dazing spell
If the spell allows a saving throw, a successful save negates the daze effect. If the spell does not allow a save, the target can make a Will save to negate the daze effect.
It's by no means necessary that someone has to continue their movement after they hit that first square of Etheric Shards. No one I know would force a character or monster to continue their movement if a readied action triggers off the first square.
But I do see what you mean about the save. Chalk it up to another example of third-rate editing in a player companion developed and written by the B team, there's no way they intended it to automatically trigger when you take damage from the attached spell, even if you made a save to reduce that damage.
You get a save vs the stat damage, and its a 4th level spell with a +4 level mod. Most 8th level spells are worse.Ethiric shards (or spike/stone growth) is nasty. Ready an action, suddenly 12 stat damage out of nowhere, no save.
Also trial by fire and acid.
Naw, as written (if the quoted rule is correct) if the base spell has a save but you take damage anyway (you saved for half) you still take the ability damage. It’s real dumb and surely not intended.
|
|
Also they only get a save if the spell the meta-magic is attached to does not allow a save.
Wow, that feat is atrociously ambiguous...it's not written explicitly, but I would expect that, if the spell allows a save, and you succeed at the save, then you negate the ability damage as well. Otherwise, why only give you a save when one is normally NOT allowed?
Naw, as written (if the quoted rule is correct)
Interestingly, I just tried searching for this feat, and couldn't find it...is it real, or is someone proposing a houserule here? Anyone know the source?
I'm not familiar with Cherry Blossom metamagic either; if it's Paizo-published, it must be very new to not yet be on D20PFSRD or AoNPRD. More likely it's 3PP or homebrew.
It's not ambiguous, it's poorly written. Dazing spell explicitly says making the spells normal save negates the rider, cherry blossom does not. Good stuff
Also they only get a save if the spell the meta-magic is attached to does not allow a save.Wow, that feat is atrociously ambiguous...it's not written explicitly, but I would expect that, if the spell allows a save, and you succeed at the save, then you negate the ability damage as well. Otherwise, why only give you a save when one is normally NOT allowed?
Naw, as written (if the quoted rule is correct)Interestingly, I just tried searching for this feat, and couldn't find it...is it real, or is someone proposing a houserule here? Anyone know the source?
Ambiguous enough to require DM interpretatation, and very few DM's are going to agree the attribute damage can be saved against if the spell normally allows a save, but cannot be saved against if the spell does allow a save.
Intent is very clear here, even if the language is not.