Where / What is the rule that says they do not stack?

[Minigiant]

The Witch Hexes Misfortune & Protective Luck both achieve the same thing when it comes to attack rolls

Protective Luck wrote:

The witch can cause fate to twist so that it benefits a creature within 30 feet for 1 round. Whenever that creature is targeted by an effect that requires an attack roll, including weapon attacks, the attacker must roll twice and take the worse result.

At 8th level and 16th level, the duration of this hex is extended by 1 round. A witch cannot use this ability on herself. Hexes that affect the fortune hex, such as cackle, also affect protective luck.

Misfortune wrote:

The witch can cause a creature within 30 feet to suffer grave misfortune for 1 round. Anytime the creature makes an ability check, attack roll, saving throw, or skill check, it must roll twice and take the worse result. A Will save negates this hex. At 8th level and 16th level, the duration of this hex is extended by 1 round. This hex affects all rolls the target must make while it lasts. Whether or not the save is successful, a creature cannot be the target of this hex again for 1 day.

Now I know they do not stack, your enemy does not roll 3 dice and take the lowest but, where is this rule written?

[Matthew Downie]

As far as I can tell, there is no such rule.

A literal reading is that the enemy rolls four dice and takes the lowest, because Protective Luck means the attacker rolls twice, and Misfortune means that each of those two dice must also be rolled twice...

There is an unofficial James Jacobs ruling saying the effects probably shouldn't stack.

Link

[Meirril]

That is an interesting interpretation. I think it is equally valid to say if you were under both effects that you must pick up 2 dice and take the worst result, which satisfies both effects.

Both effects have you do the same thing. If you picked up 3 or more d20 and rolled them, you aren't doing what either of them say. While that sounds like a logical progression, the abilities don't instruct you to make such an accommodation.

Lets call Protective Luck A. Then lets call Misfortune B. If you are under both A and B and you make an attack roll, you have two different effects that say you must roll twice and take the worst result. You pick up 2 dice, and take the worst result. That satisfies both A and B. The fact that they instruct you to do the same thing means obeying both results in doing what they both say, not trying to follow them separately.

[SheepishEidolon]

There is room for different interpretations, it could be 2, 3 or 4 dice. Personally, I lean towards 2 dice (effects not stacking), but I might be biased because: Rolling two dice for the worse result is already frustrating enough. Force someone to roll three or four dice multiple times and you might provoke a rage quit, including dice thrown.

If you don't mind to look at PF2 to learn devs' intention (in addition to James Jacobs' stance), there you can find an explicit rule:

CRB PF2, page 449 wrote:

You can never have more than one fortune and more than one misfortune effect come into play on a single roll

[dmovrich]

I think logic answers this one nicely. but the effects of stacking may have a different result than people might expect..

Say the NPC does indeed have those two conditions in place... and by rolling twice (both conditions are VERY specific about this point) and considering the results the GM does meet those requirements. (considering the result is the second specific action required) What if there is no lessor value? Say the result of the dice were a pair of 16’s. Then, after considering once, the GM might have to make a 3rd roll?

Seems silly, but that would be the only conditional ‘stacking’ effect I can envision.

[Artofregicide]

Because if they do stack, I'm turning this car around young man/lady/person!

I work all day preparing encounters and shopping for minis to put dice on the table, and I'm not going to have my creature with 11 natural attacks make 4 dice rolls and pick the worst.

I went to GM college for you! And this is how show gratitude?!

Go to your room!

:P

[MrCharisma]

I don't think it's so much that they don't stack so much as that stacking doesn't do anything.

If you had an ability that said "your weapon attacks deal cold damage" and another ability that also said "your weapon attacks do cold damage" then who cares if they stack. Having 2 of them doesn't give you anything extra.

In this case "roll twice and pick the lowest" is a pretty definitive end point

If they said "roll an extra die and pick the lowest" you'd be pretty happy with stacking them, but since that's not what it says it doesn't mean all that much.

[Cavall]

MrCharisma wrote:

I don't think it's so much that they don't stack so much as that stacking doesn't do anything.

If you had an ability that said "your weapon attacks deal cold damage" and another ability that also said "your weapon attacks do cold damage" then who cares if they stack. Having 2 of them doesn't give you anything extra.

In this case "roll twice and pick the lowest" is a pretty definitive end point

If they said "roll an extra die and pick the lowest" you'd be pretty happy with stacking them, but since that's not what it says it doesn't mean all that much.

Yes I think this is the most literal. Roll twice. Not thrice. Or uh.. frice?

[MrCharisma]

Cavall wrote:

Yes I think this is the most literal. Roll twice. Not thrice. Or uh.. frice?

But what comes after frice?

[blahpers]

Nothing says that they don't stack. On the other hand, nothing explains exactly how they stack, and there are multiple valid interpretations.

This gets more fun when one of the effects is "roll twice and take the lowest" and one is "roll twice and take the highest". Throw in a "may reroll after rolling but before result is revealed" for extra seasoning. For a flavor explosion, make it a situation in which the GM is secret-rolling for the player.

[Ryan Freire]

2 dice.

If you roll 2 dice you have rolled twice and taken the lowest result, fulfilling both of the abilities effects.

[Cavall]

MrCharisma wrote:

Cavall wrote:

Yes I think this is the most literal. Roll twice. Not thrice. Or uh.. frice?

But what comes after frice?

Fivce of course.