Do effects that have multiple options count as separate effects for each different effect, as in they can exist together, or do they all count as duplicate effects, as in only one instance applies?
I have two examples relevant to my new sorcerer:
1. The imperial bloodline blood magic imperious defense can grant myself either an AC or saving throw bonus. Can I have both bonuses up at the same time provided I cast two spells that benefits from blood magic in one turn, or do they as duplicate ‘imperious defense’ effects so only one instance applies?
2. The resist energy spell has several energy damage resistance options it can grant to a target. Can I have two instances of resist energy on a target each for a different damage type resistance, or do they count as duplicate ‘resist energy’ effects so only one instance applies?
1. Sorcerer Blood Magic specifically says you can only benefit from one instance of the effect at a time; you need a feat to be able to benefit from a secondary effect, though with the feat you can gain both effects with one casting.
2. Resist Energy can stack in this case because they are modifying different values and don't have any conflicting clauses preventing them from stacking. Also, the odds of this coming up or being relevant in actual play is so rare that it's not really going to come up, and honestly, since it costs both limited resources and action economy, I don't see the problem.
Generally I would allow different effects from the same spell or ability as long as they are fully different effects.
The Resist Energy spell being a clear example. I would definitely allow Resist Energy (fire) followed by Resist Energy (acid) and then have both resistances in effect.
There are other things that definitely don't work, but not necessarily because of duplicate effect rules. The example here is Untamed Form. The Polymorph trait prevents being under the effect of two instances of Untamed Form and having both - or even some of both - be in effect.
I think there are also things that are duplicate effects and shouldn't be allowed to stack. You shouldn't be allowed to cast two instances of Wrathful Storm over the same area and have both take effect even if you always choose different events from the list for the two instances.
So tl;dr, I think it needs to be ruled on a case-by-case basis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think OP is talking about this part of Game Conventions in PC chapter 8.
When you're affected by the same thing multiple times, only one instance applies, using the higher level or rank of the effects, or the newer effect if the two are equal. For example, if you were using mystic armor and then cast it again, you'd still benefit from only one casting of that spell. Casting a spell again on the same target might get you a better duration or effect if it were cast at a higher rank the second time, but otherwise doing so gives you no advantage.
So I don't think Resist Energy would stack. Even if you pick a different option, you are still casting the same spell again on the target so only the higher rank - or failing that, the more recent - casting would apply.
I recall the days of old edition yore where I could essentially make myself immune to dispels simply by having redundant long duration buffs.
So I don't think Resist Energy would stack. Even if you pick a different option, you are still casting the same spell again on the target so only the higher rank - or failing that, the more recent - casting would apply.
It is the same spell.
The rule doesn't mention spells other than as the two examples. The non-example part of the rule says 'effects' or 'affected by'.
Which makes sense. We use this same rule to prevent overlapping the same Kineticist aura from two Kineticists to both apply to the same creature. A Kineticist aura is not a spell. But it is still an effect, so the rule applies even if the examples don't match.
Fire Resistance (5) is a different effect from Electricity Resistance (5). So I don't see the rule as preventing those two effects. They aren't the same effect, even if they both came from a casting of Resist Energy.
It is the same spell.
The rule doesn't mention spells other than as the two examples. The non-example part of the rule says 'effects' or 'affected by'.
Which makes sense. We use this same rule to prevent overlapping the same Kineticist aura from two Kineticists to both apply to the same creature. A Kineticist aura is not a spell. But it is still an effect, so the rule applies even if the examples don't match.
Fire Resistance (5) is a different effect from Electricity Resistance (5). So I don't see the rule as preventing those two effects. They aren't the same effect, even if they both came from a casting of Resist Energy.
The rule states rather clearly that casting twice the same spell gives no advantage besides duration and spell rank. So "not seeing the rule preventing those two effects" is a case of selective blindness.
I think OP is talking about this part of Game Conventions in PC chapter 8.
When you're affected by the same thing multiple times, only one instance applies, using the higher level or rank of the effects, or the newer effect if the two are equal. For example, if you were using mystic armor and then cast it again, you'd still benefit from only one casting of that spell. Casting a spell again on the same target might get you a better duration or effect if it were cast at a higher rank the second time, but otherwise doing so gives you no advantage.So I don't think Resist Energy would stack. Even if you pick a different option, you are still casting the same spell again on the target so only the higher rank - or failing that, the more recent - casting would apply.
The example only mentions a spell with a singular effect, not a spell with variable effects. The first sentence doesn't apply to Resist Energy for two different elements because they cease to be the same things, as they diverge from one another. At no point does the rule mention anything being different outside of higher durations or heightened benefits, so the clause doesn't seem like it can reasonably apply to Resist Energy. Nor does Resist Energy have a clause that says "You can only benefit from one casting of this spell at a time; only the recent version applies."
Now, if the description referred to different effects (or choices), I would see the point, but it references an ability with a singular effect and heightened values behind it, which is not what Resist Energy's choices affect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rule states rather clearly that casting twice the same spell gives no advantage besides duration and spell rank. So "not seeing the rule preventing those two effects" is a case of selective blindness.It is the same spell.
The rule doesn't mention spells other than as the two examples. The non-example part of the rule says 'effects' or 'affected by'.
Which makes sense. We use this same rule to prevent overlapping the same Kineticist aura from two Kineticists to both apply to the same creature. A Kineticist aura is not a spell. But it is still an effect, so the rule applies even if the examples don't match.
Fire Resistance (5) is a different effect from Electricity Resistance (5). So I don't see the rule as preventing those two effects. They aren't the same effect, even if they both came from a casting of Resist Energy.
Please elaborate.
Do you think that Fire Resistance (5) and Electricity Resistance (5) are the same effect? Are they still the same effect if you are getting one from Charhide Goblin Heritage and the other from Resist Energy?
Which part of the rule: "When you're affected by the same thing multiple times, only one instance applies, using the higher level or rank of the effects, or the newer effect if the two are equal." references spells?
Yes, the example is a spell. A spell that only has one consistent effect that it causes every time the spell is cast.
There is also the note that you can cast the same spell to get a better effect or a longer duration.
In the case of Resist Energy, the second casting is not giving a better effect or a longer duration. The second casting is giving a different effect.
Explain your logic please.
Please elaborate.
When you're affected by the same thing multiple times, only one instance applies
Casting a spell again on the same target might get you a better duration or effect if it were cast at a higher rank the second time, but otherwise doing so gives you no advantage.
You need more elaboration than that?
RAW is crystal clear: It's no.
You can make an RAI ruling, but stating that "you don't see the rule preventing the casting of the same spell twice on the same target" is obvious blindness.
Also, I'm sure there are cases where you will think twice before considering that 2 different effects coming from the same kind of source aren't equal, like when you imbibe 4 Potions of Retaliation.
So don't post as if there was any kind of evidence in your ruling as it directly contradicts RAW and raises as many questions as the official ruling.
I would think getting electricity resistance from resist energy when I already have fire resistance from resist energy would fall under the "better effect" clause and thus be totally permissible.
I also agree that treating it as a separate effect and allowing it on that basis is also a completely valid interpretation of the rules.
You are arguing definitions. Namely what is the "same thing". Is Resist Energy:fire and Resist Energy:electricity the same thing or not?
Personally, I think no, different effects from the same spell aren't the same thing.
Besides, this is very rare and allowing 'stacking' (which is not real here) won't break anything.
Look at Potions of Retaliation before stating that. I think a retaliation of 16d8 is very much game breaking. Even using the much cheaper level 12 Potions of Retaliation gives you 12d6 of retaliation, which is level 19 high damage.
Knowing Paizo, I'd not bet that they would allow the same kind of effect to be duplicated multiple times when coming from the same "thing". They far prefer to block any potential exploit even if it means shutting down some legitimate uses.
At my table, PCs will only benefit from the same spells/items/whatever only once. No duplicated effects because there's a slight difference.
That interpretation would also allow harmful effects with choices to all affect a target at once. For instance, Seal Fate could inflict weakness 2 to acid, bludgeoning, cold, electricity, fire, negative, piercing, slashing, and sonic with enough castings.
You need more elaboration than that?
Yes.
Define 'thing'.
Because it isn't 'spell'. If 'thing' meant 'spell' then it wouldn't need to have the "using the higher level or rank of the effects" part. Spells don't have level in the Remaster - which is where this quote is from (hence the Rank term).
Stating your position emphatically is not the same as providing logical reasoning to support it.
Also, I'm sure there are cases where you will think twice before considering that 2 different effects coming from the same kind of source aren't equal, like when you imbibe 4 Potions of Retaliation.
And no, I don't have a problem with 4 Potions of Retaliation with different energy types. As long as all four consumables are being consumed and using their separate action costs for drawing/creating and drinking them.
Similarly, if I cast 4 castings of Fireball, I expect that all four are going to take effect as long as I am spending the spell slots and action costs for casting each of them.
Thing is a spell, magic item, whatever. That's why after that it speaks of using level (if it's an item for example) or rank (if it's a spell).
And no, I don't have a problem with 4 Potions of Retaliation with different energy types. As long as all four consumables are being consumed and using their separate action costs for drawing/creating and drinking them.
Similarly, if I cast 4 castings of Fireball, I expect that all four are going to take effect as long as I am spending the spell slots and action costs for casting each of them.
If you were able to cast 4 Fireballs as prebuff, I'm pretty sure you'd not be ok. Anyway, you do whatever you want. I was just making it clear that your interpretation is very far from the only one and that it is in direct contradiction with RAW. You consider there's an RAI case to make, which I have no issue with, but that's your interpretation.
Thing is a spell, magic item, whatever. That's why after that it speaks of using level (if it's an item for example) or rank (if it's a spell).
Excellent. We agree on that part.
Now, if the rule prevents duplicate 'things' then it isn't preventing duplicate 'spells'. It is preventing duplicate 'effects'. Because that is the word that it uses in the second half of that sentence. And in the title of the rule.
So duplicate spells are not restricted. Only duplicate effects are.
The same spell creating a different effect is not prohibited.
In what manner, specifically, are you interpreting that differently than I am?
Thing is a spell, magic item, whatever. That's why after that it speaks of using level (if it's an item for example) or rank (if it's a spell).Excellent. We agree on that part.
Now, if the rule prevents duplicate 'things' then it isn't preventing duplicate 'spells'.
Well, you'd have to explain me this logical leap. If thing can be a spell and if it prevents duplicate things then it prevents duplicate... spells :)
Well, you'd have to explain me this logical leap. If thing can be a spell and if it prevents duplicate things then it prevents duplicate... spells :)Thing is a spell, magic item, whatever. That's why after that it speaks of using level (if it's an item for example) or rank (if it's a spell).Excellent. We agree on that part.
Now, if the rule prevents duplicate 'things' then it isn't preventing duplicate 'spells'.
Hmm... Maybe we don't agree on it as much as I thought.
If two different 'things' are creating the same effect, then they would still fall under the rule because they are creating the same effect.
So it seems that my definition of 'thing' is 'effect'.
And still, the title of the rule is "Duplicate Effects". Not 'duplicate spells' or 'duplicate things'.
Is the choice not part of the spell's effect?
Is the choice not part of the spell's effect?
Sometimes it is part of the effect and sometimes it is part of the casting.
That is why I use Wrathful Storm as an example of a spell that has multiple choices that I do consider to be the same effect. Instead of creating a named effect like Fire Resistance (5) or a simple effect like Grasping Earth, it is creating a single, complicated effect that has choices each round.
Resist Energy you make the choice as part of the casting. If the spell was instead split into multiple spells (Resist Fire, Resist Electricity, Resist Sonic, ...) then SuperBidi wouldn't have a case at all. And the only difference in the mechanics would be that the caster would have to predict and prepare the right spell instead of choosing at casting time.
That is also why my stance on this is that the GM will have to rule on a case-by-case basis and that there isn't a single one right answer for all cases.
So it seems that my definition of 'thing' is 'effect'.
I hardly think Paizo used the word "thing" for effect when they properly used the word effect afterwards.
Maybe they overlooked spells/items with choices when creating this rule or maybe they thought about them and wanted to avoid multiple instances of such spells/items. But from the way the rule is written, it's not the effect that is important, it's the "thing". And 2 castings of Resist Energy are in my opinion the same thing, even if you make different choices afterwards.
Well, you can certainly have a different opinion than I do. I have no problem with that.
But if you are wanting to say that my opinion is based on flawed logic and "selective blindness" you are going to need to support that with more than just opinion.
I think the rule should have used a different example than mystic armor. The benefits granted by mystic armor are item bonuses and uses of proficiency bonus, which by their nature already do not stack.
Well, you can certainly have a different opinion than I do. I have no problem with that.
But if you are wanting to say that my opinion is based on flawed logic and "selective blindness" you are going to need to support that with more than just opinion.
I reacted when you stated there was basically nothing in the rules going against your interpretation.
Otherwise, I'm fine with it, it makes sense. But I still keep thinking it goes against RAW, both against the last sentence that you choose to ignore and against the word "thing" as "thing" covers more than just effects.
You are arguing definitions. Namely what is the "same thing". Is Resist Energy:fire and Resist Energy:electricity the same thing or not?
Personally, I think no, different effects from the same spell aren't the same thing.
Besides, this is very rare and allowing 'stacking' (which is not real here) won't break anything.Look at Potions of Retaliation before stating that. I think a retaliation of 16d8 is very much game breaking. Even using the much cheaper level 12 Potions of Retaliation gives you 12d6 of retaliation, which is level 19 high damage.
Knowing Paizo, I'd not bet that they would allow the same kind of effect to be duplicated multiple times when coming from the same "thing". They far prefer to block any potential exploit even if it means shutting down some legitimate uses.
At my table, PCs will only benefit from the same spells/items/whatever only once. No duplicated effects because there's a slight difference.
So, even despite the factor that it has serious gold costs and action economy costs, it's somehow not okay to allow this stuff to stack even though the effects are different? That is gold not spent on other items/services, meaning it is essentially burned for a negligible benefit at best; same for spell slots per day. Also, nobody has the actions to chug 3-4 different potions in a single round, just like nobody had the actions to cast 2-3 Resist Energy spells, and there are very few encounters/abilities in this game that actually utilize these level of benefits, so odds are, it is overkill/wasted anyway.
Even if the RAW is clear in that making sub-choices does not change the factor that it is the same initial effect (resistance value to one type of your choice), it isn't really fully clear that sub-choices don't change the source the effect is coming from (since the example given does not have sub-choices), nor would it break the game for it to work that way as well.
Anyone with a familiar can actually use Valet to put potions in their hands so the user doesn't have to spend actions drawing them. This allows one character to drink 3 potions in a single turn.
So, even despite the factor that it has serious gold costs and action economy costs, it's somehow not okay to allow this stuff to stack even though the effects are different? That is gold not spent on other items/services, meaning it is essentially burned for a negligible benefit at best; same for spell slots per day. Also, nobody has the actions to chug 3-4 different potions in a single round, just like nobody had the actions to cast 2-3 Resist Energy spells, and there are very few encounters/abilities in this game that actually utilize these level of benefits, so odds are, it is overkill/wasted anyway.
Even if the RAW is clear in that making sub-choices does not change the factor that it is the same initial effect (resistance value to one type of your choice), it isn't really fully clear that sub-choices don't change the source the effect is coming from (since the example given does not have sub-choices), nor would it break the game for it to work that way as well.
I don't have a horse in this race. I think both interpretations are fine and won't completely break the game because the chances to get the same effect multiple times is extremely low.
I personally prefer to block abuses by using RAW, also because I'm not 100% convinced Paizo forgot about spells and items with choices when they wrote this rule. I also consider that Ring of Energy Resistance leads to some issues at high level when it's so easy to have many of them. If getting Energy Resistance is baseline then it should be part of ABP. As it's not, I consider it should not be easily generalized.
So, even despite the factor that it has serious gold costs and action economy costs, it's somehow not okay to allow this stuff to stack even though the effects are different? That is gold not spent on other items/services, meaning it is essentially burned for a negligible benefit at best; same for spell slots per day. Also, nobody has the actions to chug 3-4 different potions in a single round, just like nobody had the actions to cast 2-3 Resist Energy spells, and there are very few encounters/abilities in this game that actually utilize these level of benefits, so odds are, it is overkill/wasted anyway.
Even if the RAW is clear in that making sub-choices does not change the factor that it is the same initial effect (resistance value to one type of your choice), it isn't really fully clear that sub-choices don't change the source the effect is coming from (since the example given does not have sub-choices), nor would it break the game for it to work that way as well.
I don't have a horse in this race. I think both interpretations are fine and won't completely break the game because the chances to get the same effect multiple times is extremely low.
I personally prefer to block abuses by using RAW, also because I'm not 100% convinced Paizo forgot about spells and items with choices when they wrote this rule. I also consider that Ring of Energy Resistance leads to some issues at high level when it's so easy to have many of them. If getting Energy Resistance is baseline then it should be part of ABP. As it's not, I consider it should not be easily generalized.
If that was the case then I would suspect that Paizo would have had a clause about it in the book; the factor that no such clause exists and that the rules are mostly silent on the matter tells me that either Paizo forgot about it or left it up to ourselves to figure it out.
The question becomes "How is it abuseable?" Again, spell slots/gold cost and action economy all work quite well to balance this out for us already; I am not seeing the potential abuse by nature of it taking so many actions/gold to set up that by the time it becomes an issue the combat is likely over.
Anyone with a familiar can actually use Valet to put potions in their hands so the user doesn't have to spend actions drawing them. This allows one character to drink 3 potions in a single turn.
Try 2 potions, since Valet takes an action, and consuming each potion takes an action per use.
Even if you get it done in 2 rounds, most combats end the following round, so you wasted 2 turns buffing for an encounter that you could have ended faster by just not doing that. And that isn't factoring in the gold cost or access.
Still not seeing how this is broken or abusive of the game.
Valet is an action? Oh, it is. I thought it was overriding the need to use the Command action to give it 2 actions.
The question becomes "How is it abuseable?" Again, spell slots/gold cost and action economy all work quite well to balance this out for us already; I am not seeing the potential abuse by nature of it taking so many actions/gold to set up that by the time it becomes an issue the combat is likely over.
For me, the Potions of Retaliation is an abuse. We don't have the same point of view on consumables, I got that from our previous discussions. I personally use them to excellent effect and having a combo of consumables that bring virtual invulnerability is definitely out of whack to me.
I also think the ability to cover all Energies with Ring of Resistance is an issue, as it actually makes Resist Energy and Energy Aegis mostly useless.
Anyone with a familiar can actually use Valet to put potions in their hands so the user doesn't have to spend actions drawing them. This allows one character to drink 3 potions in a single turn.
How does this work?
You command your familiar to give you a pair of potions at the start of your turn (1 action) and then you drink them (1 action each). That's all your actions.
You start your turn with a of potion in hand. You drink it (1 action), command your famiar to hand you two more (1 action), then drink one of them (1 action). You are again out of actions with only two potions ingested.
What am I missing? Independent can't be it; that doesn't work with valet.
EDIT: I really need to work on my typing speed. XD
The question becomes "How is it abuseable?" Again, spell slots/gold cost and action economy all work quite well to balance this out for us already; I am not seeing the potential abuse by nature of it taking so many actions/gold to set up that by the time it becomes an issue the combat is likely over.For me, the Potions of Retaliation is an abuse. We don't have the same point of view on consumables, I got that from our previous discussions. I personally use them to excellent effect and having a combo of consumables that bring virtual invulnerability is definitely out of whack to me.
I also think the ability to cover all Energies with Ring of Resistance is an issue, as it actually makes Resist Energy and Energy Aegis mostly useless.
I don't see how consumables break the game; at best they might get you out of a tight pinch, and at worst they are a waste of publishing space. Players trying to out-match the GM are going to have a bad time, especially in this edition where the math is tight and the GM can make literally anything counter whatever shenanigans you pull. (Technically, the GM could have always done this, regardless of edition, but it's honestly not needed anywhere near as much in this one.)
To put it into perspective, you have a couple options:
1. If you go the Rings route, each Ring counts as an investment slot, so if you are wanting Resistance to all 5 elements available (it doesn't cover Force, Void/Vitality, or Poison damage), that is half of your investment slots, which are competing for other important items. This is less painful if you have the Incredible Investiture feat, but given that you will most always have an Armor slot, you will have maybe 4 "free" investment slots to work with, which isn't very much. Not to mention, this gets very expensive, very fast, and a couple of those options (Acid and Sonic in particular) are so niche you don't really need them.
2. If you go the Armor route, while this greatly cuts down on your investment costs (it shares the same as your armor), this has a similar if not higher cost to the Rings, and is limited based on your armor bonus (+3 armor means you can have 3 different Resist runes on it), as well as being limited to Resistance 10 (whereas the Rings are capped at 15). It also doesn't cover all the bases due to being limited to 3 choices, and Sonic is no longer an option here, meaning you will have issues if you come across those weird damage types (of course, Acid and Sonic being the two least likely choices means those are the ones that are the odd ones out).
3. Certain items automatically grant basic Resistances on top of their other things, so if you are wanting some Resistance-based gear that does a little bit extra, this might not be a bad compromise. Often times, though, the Resistance doesn't really increase much, nor do these items scale very well.
Commonly, some people take a hybrid approach to this, where they might have one or two runes for the less common options, and use rings or other items to cover up the rest, but given that the math doesn't assume that characters will have these kinds of items (as well as it invalidating character choices which innately give these options), it makes sense that these options aren't included in Automatic Bonus Progression.
Resist Energy is only a Level 2 spell, with heightenings that aren't very potent to begin with (the real benefits being able to affect multiple people at a time), and Energy Aegis can't be that strong because it is effectively Resist All Elements, as well as lasts an entire adventuring day (assuming it doesn't get dispelled early).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Valet is an action? Oh, it is. I thought it was overriding the need to use the Command action to give it 2 actions.
It was a common argument that people would take both the Independent and Valet Familiar Abilities to get to have two items drawn for you as a "Free Action." Thankfully, Paizo saw it our way, and made it clear you can't do those shenanigans.
Page 146: There's been some confusion over whether an independent familiar can use abilities that require a command, like valet, or whether the independent ability overrides the normal rules for mounted combat. To make clear that neither is the case, add "This doesn’t work with valet or similar abilities that require a command, if you’re capable of riding your familiar, or similar situations."
I don't see how consumables break the game;
We already got this conversation. I see it as I use some of them.
Players trying to out-match the GM are going to have a bad time, especially in this edition where the math is tight and the GM can make literally anything counter whatever shenanigans you pull. (Technically, the GM could have always done this, regardless of edition, but it's honestly not needed anywhere near as much in this one.)
You can't bring houserules as a support to your interpretation.
I'm not sure there's a point discussing what we consider abuse or not, that's really a tangential conversation.
I don't see how consumables break the game;We already got this conversation. I see it as I use some of them.
Players trying to out-match the GM are going to have a bad time, especially in this edition where the math is tight and the GM can make literally anything counter whatever shenanigans you pull. (Technically, the GM could have always done this, regardless of edition, but it's honestly not needed anywhere near as much in this one.)You can't bring houserules as a support to your interpretation.
I'm not sure there's a point discussing what we consider abuse or not, that's really a tangential conversation.
There is "I use consumables," and there is "Consumables can break the game if used in a certain way, and this interpretation allows for that to happen." Neither of these points really intersect in terms of relation, hence why I asked for elaboration; otherwise, that counterpoint which was raised doesn't really mean anything when it has no substance behind it. And again, if you're talking about this post, I kind of already debunked that, so if there are other examples, feel free to list them.
How is "The GM can design encounters however he wants because the rules says he can" a houserule?
And again, if you're talking about this post, I kind of already debunked that
Your arguments are invalid to me. But they are valid to you. So, what do we do?
That's why I state that there's no point continuing this conversation.
I'm pretty sure one instance of a spell strictly applies, and the reason the limit is important in this case is because the spell is only intended to grant one energy resistance.
I'm pretty sure one instance of a spell strictly applies, and the reason the limit is important in this case is because the spell is only intended to grant one energy resistance.
If that was the case, the spell itself would say that you can only benefit from one instance of this spell at a time, and Paizo isn't above repeating basic rules in descriptions, because they do so numerous times within the book.
If that was the case, the spell itself would say that you can only benefit from one instance of this spell at a time, and Paizo isn't above repeating basic rules in descriptions, because they do so numerous times within the book.
And every feat should state that you can take it only once?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If that was the case, the spell itself would say that you can only benefit from one instance of this spell at a time, and Paizo isn't above repeating basic rules in descriptions, because they do so numerous times within the book.And every feat should state that you can take it only once?
That's a tomatoes to potatoes comparison; feats aren't spells, and spells aren't feats. My statement refers to when Paizo prints stuff like this:
Make two unarmed Strikes. If both hit the same creature, combine their damage for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses. Apply your multiple attack penalty to the Strikes normally. As it has the flourish trait, you can use Flurry of Blows only once per turn.
The bolded part is unnecessary to print because the traits system already takes care of that for us. We don't need to state that the feature has the Flourish trait and what that trait does, or to say that it can only be done once per round because it has the Flourish trait it is redundant and doesn't have to be said because players can examine trait descriptions to ascertain what those traits mean and what they apply to the ability. Same goes for spells; we can easily tell you can't combine two Form spells because the Polymorph trait gets that point across for us. So, you can't benefit from two Animal Form spells because the trait system denies it, or from a Pest Form spell on top of an Animal Form spell.
The problem is that these contradicting spells don't have mutually exclusive versions of choices; that is, you can gain benefits from multiple versions of the same spell because they don't lock you out of other choices within that same spell, or don't have traits that say you can only benefit from one type of spell at a time. Granted, you are technically correct in that spells don't have subtypes when cast; Resist Energy, whether it gives you resistances to Fire or Cold or Acid, is still Resist Energy, I'm of the opinion that it is a pointless restriction on that spell, since again, it has opportunity and monetary costs behind it, which already balances it out from being some super overpowered option.
I'm pretty sure one instance of a spell strictly applies, and the reason the limit is important in this case is because the spell is only intended to grant one energy resistance.If that was the case, the spell itself would say that you can only benefit from one instance of this spell at a time, and Paizo isn't above repeating basic rules in descriptions, because they do so numerous times within the book.
Can you provide an example of a spell that says you can only benefit from one instance of that spell at a time?
Can you provide an example of a spell that says you can only benefit from one instance of that spell at a time?I'm pretty sure one instance of a spell strictly applies, and the reason the limit is important in this case is because the spell is only intended to grant one energy resistance.If that was the case, the spell itself would say that you can only benefit from one instance of this spell at a time, and Paizo isn't above repeating basic rules in descriptions, because they do so numerous times within the book.
No, but I feel like Resist Energy is an exception to the rule, and should have one in place.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you provide an example of a spell that says you can only benefit from one instance of that spell at a time?
Also a few focus spells including Nudge Fate, Bit of Luck, and Blood in the Water.
No, but I feel like Resist Energy is an exception to the rule, and should have one in place.
I don't think it is the only one, though.
Rank 2 Environmental Endurance should be allowed to be cast twice on the same target to get both heat and cold protection. The Rank 3 version will do that for one spell slot.
Runic Impression should be allowed to be cast twice on the same weapon to get two different property runes (assuming that the weapon has the Fundamental Runes to handle that).
So when we start adding a bunch of one-off exceptions, it makes more sense to just adjudicate the rule on a case-by-case basis.