Fast Healing

[Grothmog]

I have run into a problem in the game I am running. One member of the group wants to take two different classes, one of which gives fast healing one, and the other one fast healing five. He thinks they should stack, whereas I think he should choose between the two. Should I let him stack it, or should he have to choose?

[meemaas]

Fast healing only ever overlaps. The only time two sources of fast healing stack are if they explicitly state they do, but I'm sure someone will be around to quote that soon.

[frogglesmash]

Just FYI DR also overlaps as does regeneration.

[Ruethgar]

Please cite where it says fast healing doesn't stack, as I understand it they do.

[Mehangel]

I know that I have seen that some sources of Fast Healing do infact stack. But those sources specifically state that they stack. Thus I would rule that unless the source specifically states that it stacks it will not stack.

EDIT: I have ruled in my own games though that regeneration and fast healing are two separate things and thus you could effectively have regeneration 1 and fast healing 1, and gaining the combined benefits of both.

[Darkweave31]

Don't know where to find the relevant rules text, but fast healing 6 vs fast healing 5 really isn't that much of an impact. Maybe it'll save their life in combat once or twice in the span of the campaign, but the largest benefit of fast healing is out of combat where you'll start with full HP almost every encounter for which there's barely a difference between 5 and 6.

[ShaneMRoth]

I have run into a problem in the game I am running. One member of the group wants to take two different classes, one of which gives fast healing one, and the other one fast healing five. He thinks they should stack, whereas I think he should choose between the two. Should I let him stack it, or should he have to choose?

No matter what decision you make, you must own the decision.

If you decide you agree with the player, then that is fine. But the decision, and the consequences that attach to that decision, are yours.

DMs often are so preoccupied with being fair to a single player that they forget to be fair to themselves.

If you, as the DM, think that this effect shouldn't stack, you should presume your initial assessment is correct until you are reasonably persuaded otherwise.



Please cite where it says fast healing doesn't stack, as I understand it they do.

A DM must not be held to a "prove me wrong standard" by the players. If Fast Healing stacks, as you understand that it does, then you should be able to find supporting evidence that is more rhetorically substantive than "well, that's just... like... your opinion, man..."


Don't know where to find the relevant rules text, but fast healing 6 vs fast healing 5 really isn't that much of an impact. Maybe it'll save their life in combat once or twice in the span of the campaign, but the largest benefit of fast healing is out of combat where you'll start with full HP almost every encounter for which there's barely a difference between 5 and 6.

If the OP lets Fast Healing stack in this case, the OP will need to allow Fast Healing effects to stack as a general rule on grounds of fairness alone.

Allowing two Fast Healing 5 effects to stack to become Fast Healing 10 seems like it would have an impact. Once you let the nose of the camel into the tent, the rest of the camel's body will soon follow.

Players rarely take into account the long term consequences of rulings like this. DMs don't have this luxury.

[Roga]

A DM must not be held to a "prove me wrong standard" by the players. If Fast Healing stacks, as you understand that it does, then you should be able to find supporting evidence that is more rhetorically substantive than "well, that's just... like... your opinion, man..."

We're not asking anyone as the DM. We're asking people as other players of D&D. Some of us think it stacks, some don't. It doesn't matter what side of the argument you're on, asking the other side why they think what they do, especially if they are referencing specific rules, is completely acceptable. I'm curious about the issue, and would like to hear more. Please don't shut things down by framing things as player vs DM.

[Mehangel]

If the OP lets Fast Healing stack in this case, the OP will need to allow Fast Healing effects to stack as a general rule on grounds of fairness alone.

Allowing two Fast Healing 5 effects to stack to become Fast Healing 10 seems like it would have an impact. Once you let the nose of the camel into the tent, the rest of the camel's body will soon follow.

Players rarely take into account the long term consequences of rulings like this. DMs don't have this luxury.

This is the biggest issue that can come of allowing ALL fasting healing instances stack. Fast Healing of 5 isn't terribly horrible, nor is Fast Healing 6. But if you allow all Fast Healing to Stack, you could probably end up with a character who abuses this rule to add 4 or 5 sources of fast healing getting a Fast Healing ability of 20+ Which could easily be an issue.

[Jack_Simth]

Please don't shut things down by framing things as player vs DM.
In the context of the original post in the thread, framing it as player vs. DM is entirely appropriate:

I have run into a problem in the game I am running. One member of the group wants to take two different classes, one of which gives fast healing one, and the other one fast healing five. He thinks they should stack, whereas I think he should choose between the two. Should I let him stack it, or should he have to choose?
(Emphasis added)

[Roga]

In the context of the original post in the thread, framing it as player vs. DM is entirely appropriate:
He wasn't replying to OP though. I would genuinely like both sides to cite why they think what they do.

[Jack_Simth]

He wasn't replying to OP though. I would genuinely like both sides to cite why they think what they do.Well, he actually quotes the OP at the top of his post, and if you check the post of Ruethgar's that ShaneMRoth quoted... Ruethgar wasn't clearly addressing any one person - Ruethgar didn't quote anyone, just put out a particular statement.

Without quotes for specific references or something similar, it's quite reasonable to assume the context of the OP is still in play.

[Roga]

I'm sorry, if I'm not communicating my point, but I just want to hear both sides. It seemed like Shane wanted to shut down the conversation, and I was hoping that he wouldn't.

[AmberVael]

So, the main rules that prevent stuff from stacking are the rules on modifiers (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#modifiers) and combining magical effects (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#combiningMagicalEffects). However, Fast Healing is not a modifier- not a numerical bonus added to any roll, and it is also not a spell or spell-like ability, or even a supernatural ability to fall under magical effects, so none of the default rules that would make it not stack apply.

Looking at Fast Healing itself, there's no reason to think it stacks... but with how Fast Healing is worded, it doesn't need to stack. Fast healing does this:

At the beginning of each of the creature’s turns, it heals a certain number of hit points (defined in its description).
Assuming you can have two sources, they don't so much stack as just both apply their effects separately. If you had Fast Healing 5 from one place and Fast Healing 1 from another, you'd heal for 5, and then for 1, rather than ending up with Fast Healing 6. They're not even interacting with each other, so it definitely seems like you'd need some specific clause to say they wouldn't both work.

What really makes me think both apply is Damage Reduction. Damage Reduction is in a similar position to Fast Healing, an Ex ability that is not a modifier, to which most of the standard stacking rules don't apply. And DR explicitly calls out not stacking and says only the best applies. Fast Healing has no such wording, and is from the same source, falls into the same category of abilities.
So, by RAW? I think your player is right.

To look at things from a balance perspective, the biggest effect of Fast Healing comes into play whether you have Fast Healing 1 or Fast Healing 10- the ability to shrug off pretty much all your wounds outside of combat. In combat the amount you regain is fairly small, and Fast Healing compares unfavorably to damage reduction (which itself isn't considered all that great in most quantities). Healing 6 every turn instead of 5 is not going to be a big deal, and really I wouldn't even be worried if they stacked more Fast Healing than that. From that perspective you're probably okay too.

[SangoProduction]

I am in the boat of "It's just like having 2 healers as opposed to 1. It's not a stacking heal, as much as just 2 heals." But I do see where the potential problems with regenerating your entire health pool in a turn could be a balance problem. And, also, by the typical assumption that fast healing doesn't stack, it's considered utterly useless by this forum.
As such, I would recommend the following....compromise? Allow multiple sources to stack, but only up to 1.5 times their level per turn. Of course, that's not the only reason it's considered useless, it's also completely overpriced. So, if they want to get that much FH, then they are going to be significantly weaker in other aspects.
Long as you don't do a simple "kill eachother until you die" type of scenario every time, you should be just fine.

[ShaneMRoth]

From the SRD on fast healing...


A creature with fast healing has the extraordinary ability to regain hit points at an exceptional rate. Except for what is noted here, fast healing is like natural healing.

So, the redundant healing spell thing is in effect.

Also, from the Epic portion of the SRD...



Fast Healing [Epic]
Prerequisite Con 25.

Benefit
You gain fast healing 3, or your existing fast healing increases from 3 to 6 by 3. This feat does not stack with fast healing granted by magic items or nonpermanent magical effects.
Special

You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects stack.

So, if you take this Epic Feat more than once, then you can increase Fast Healing from 3 to 6. It stacks with itself, but not much else. The fact that a creature needs a superhuman CON to even have this ability suggests it should be handled conservatively.

Multi-class characters


As a general rule, the abilities of a multiclass character are the sum of the abilities of each of the character’s classes.

Both Trap Sense and Uncanny Dodge stack for multi-class Barbarians and Rogues. The rules under those classes also explicitly state that those effects stack, which wouldn't be necessary if this were implicitly true.

And finally...


Stacking

In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). If the modifiers to a particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus and worst penalty applies. Dodge bonuses and circumstance bonuses however, do stack with one another unless otherwise specified.

This refers to stacking modifiers for rolls and checks rather than for special abilities, so it is more informative than authoritative.

The implication of ruling for the player in the OP is that Fast Healing stacks, except where it explicitly says it doesn't.

The implication of ruling for the DM in the OP is that Fast Healing doesn't stack except where it explicitly says it does.

I would rule that Fast Healing doesn't stack, for reasons previously stated downthread.

[Sliver]

While I play, and rule, that Fast Healing doesn't stack, and it feels intuitive to play that way, I find little evidence to support it.

All "Fast Healing" abilities share the same name, which would imply that they don't stack, but it doesn't outright say it. The not stacking of "same source" is only mentioned for bonuses, of which Fast Healing is not.

The Stacking rules are either mentioned specifically for every instance that it is relevant, or outlined only in the case of modifiers and spells. Neither Fast Healing nor Regeneration ever mentions not stacking. Damage Reduction does say that it overlaps, instead of stacking, but isn't really comparable.


Stack: Combine for a cumulative effect. In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack if they come from different sources and have different descriptors (or no descriptors at all), but do not stack if they have the same descriptors or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). [..] Spell effected that do not stack may overlap, coexist independently, or render one another irrelevant, depending on their exact effects.

It is relevant only for spells such as Vigor, but those mention not stacking explicitly. I didn't find a general rule that says that abilities that provide anything but a modifier don't stack due to sharing a name, or having the exact same effect.

It seems to me that, by RAW, you can have as many Fast Healing 1 effects, and as long as only one of them is from a spell, they will all stack.

Edit: @^ - The only part that really supports not-stacking from what you quoted is the multiclass quote. The Fast Healing feat stacks with Fast Healing you get from racial or class features, as they are Extraordinary. The part about spells isn't relevant for most FH effects, as a lot of it is not derived from magical items or spells.

The problem with "it stacks only if it says it does" is that the stacking rules never mentioned that non-modifier abilities don't stack. Uncanny Dodge is called outright because there is an improved version. Trap Sense is a modifier. Fast Healing is neither.

[Lorddenorstrus]

{scrubbed}

@OP I myself agree with the others on 2 different sources stacking by applying at the same time. I've always done it that way, it's the same as having a large damage reduction really. It doesn't really do anything at all in high powered games so nobody has really argued against it. Lol

[Evolved Shrimp]

I am in the boat of "It's just like having 2 healers as opposed to 1. It's not a stacking heal, as much as just 2 heals."

But there aren’t two healers – it’s only one, namely the natural abilities of the injured body. What there are two of is sources of a better-than-normal healing rate of said body.

This is very much analogous to better-than-normal vision, speed, damage resistance, or spell resistance. All of these improvements to a character do not stack unless they either expressly say so or are expressed as bonuses to begin with. Neither of these seems to be true for fast healing.

Non-stacking is the standard for any improvements in D&D that are expressed as a flat target number, as opposed to a bonus or increase. Unless there is specific language about improvement to fast healing stacking, I would consider it RAW that it does not stack.

There is nothing preventing a DM from house-ruling that it does stack, of course.

[SinsI]

Damage effects stack, so healing also stacks. And Fast Healing is a variant of healing.
You can stack however many Fast Healing effects you want, even from the same source like Wand of Lesser Vigor.

[Sliver]

This is very much analogous to better-than-normal vision, speed, damage resistance, or spell resistance. All of these improvements to a character do not stack unless they either expressly say so or are expressed as bonuses to begin with. Neither of these seems to be true for fast healing.

Non-stacking is the standard for any improvements in D&D that are expressed as a flat target number, as opposed to a bonus or increase. Unless there is specific language about improvement to fast healing stacking, I would consider it RAW that it does not stack.

Let's see...


Spell resistance doesn’t stack. It overlaps. So, the strongest spell resistance applies while it lasts.


If a creature has damage reduction from more than one source, the two forms of damage reduction don’t stack. Instead, the creature gets the benefit of the best damage reduction that applies to a given situation.


Multiple bonuses of the same type to a creature’s speed don’t stack.

Vision improvements give you a specific distance, so it isn't relevant. Two instances of Darkvision 60 give the same result, but not because they don't stack. They overlap, and the two separate instances do nothing more than only one of them.

These effects need to say that they stack, because the general rule is that they don't. The Fast Healing ability doesn't say that it doesn't stack, meaning that it needs to note when it doesn't stack instead of when it does. So it is not analogous to any of the given examples.

"Non-stacking is the standard for any improvements in D&D that are expressed as a flat target number" is simply not correct. Not stacking is standard to any modifiers of the same type and to spells, and magic items, that have the same effect.

Edit: My RAW has no defense! :smalltongue:

I'm also a ninja!

[AmberVael]

But there aren’t two healers – it’s only one, namely the natural abilities of the injured body. What there are two of is sources of a better-than-normal healing rate of said body.

This is very much analogous to better-than-normal vision, speed, damage resistance, or spell resistance. All of these improvements to a character do not stack unless they either expressly say so or are expressed as bonuses to begin with. Neither of these seems to be true for fast healing.

Non-stacking is the standard for any improvements in D&D that are expressed as a flat target number, as opposed to a bonus or increase. Unless there is specific language about improvement to fast healing stacking, I would consider it RAW that it does not stack.

There is nothing preventing a DM from house-ruling that it does stack, of course.

This argument isn't very convincing. First, for things like vision you do actually get all the different effects. If you have 60ft darkvision and 90ft darkvision, they don't stack (neither has any language that would allow them to add their range to the other), but you still have both capabilities. If for some reason you lose your 90ft darkvision, you do still have 60ft darkvision. Similarly, there's nothing to indicate that you don't have both versions of Fast Healing- but unlike having two sources of darkvision, the mechanics of Fast Healing do work in such a way that both would provide their function. Its not that they're stacking, its just that both function and that their function doesn't overlap like most effects do just by their nature (having darkvision at a range of 60ft is useless when you can also see at a range of 90ft).

Damage Reduction doesn't stack its effects because it is explicitly called out in its text. Spell Resistance is the same. Fast Healing has no such language, so comparing it to them is actually a liability to those who would argue that two forms of fast healing don't work together- surely if Fast Healing wasn't supposed to work with multiple sources, it would clarify it like the other abilities do?

As for non-stacking being the standard for all numerical stuff? You're going to need to cite a ruling on that. The vast majority of numerical effects in D&D fall under bonus or modifier, so they do follow non-stacking rules but that doesn't mean that everything follows those rules.

[Evolved Shrimp]

Actually, mulling over this a little more, I believe we are overthinking this.

If the class feature is “You get fast healing 5”, that’s what you get by RAW. Only if it says “Your fast healing rate improves by 5” (or something to that effect), you would get fast healing 6.

That’s RAW. There is room to argue that that’s not RAI (although I haven’t yet seen arguments that would convince me personally), and there’s room for house rules.

[Sliver]

Actually, mulling over this a little more, I believe we are overthinking this.

If the class feature is “You get fast healing 5”, that’s what you get by RAW. Only if it says “Your fast healing rate improves by 5” (or something to that effect), you would get fast healing 6.

That’s RAW. There is room to argue that that’s not RAI (although I haven’t yet seen arguments that would convince me personally), and there’s room for house rules.

Where does it say that if you have two instances of Fast Healing X, one of them isn't working?

If my DFA uses entangling exhalation twice on an opponent, I expect the foe to take damage from both instances.

[AmberVael]

Actually, mulling over this a little more, I believe we are overthinking this.

If the class feature is “You get fast healing 5”, that’s what you get by RAW. Only if it says “Your fast healing rate improves by 5” (or something to that effect), you would get fast healing 6.

That’s RAW. There is room to argue that that’s not RAI (although I haven’t yet seen arguments that would convince me personally), and there’s room for house rules.

I'm pretty sure no one has even been arguing that you get Fast Healing 6. I know I haven't. See:


Assuming you can have two sources, they don't so much stack as just both apply their effects separately. If you had Fast Healing 5 from one place and Fast Healing 1 from another, you'd heal for 5, and then for 1, rather than ending up with Fast Healing 6. They're not even interacting with each other, so it definitely seems like you'd need some specific clause to say they wouldn't both work.

[Jowgen]

After reading through everyone's arguments, I am strongly inclined to agree with the "stacks because not modifier" camp. Intuitively, I was on the no-stacking side in this, but I was convinced.

The only thing I can contribute is based on the following phrase form the RC:

"Except as noted here, fast healing is like natural healing."

There are several effects that can increase your natural healing rate, and to my knowledge, almost all of them stack. If you have a Dukar Hand Coral, sleep in a magic bedroll, get someone to heal-check you, and so on, each one adds the equivalent of your normal healing rate to your total healed. That sets a precedent for non-magical healing that occurs at the same time stacking.

[ShaneMRoth]

{scrubbed}

I don't consider the reasonable application of DM discretion to be a house rule.

[Necroticplague]

Fast healing doesn't stack in the normal sense. If you have two seperate instances of it, they both heal you, though. You don't combine fast healing 5 and fast healing 1 to get fast healing 6, but they both still work, which produces a similar effect.

As for the balance concerns of it: given how hard it is to get fast healing, the ability to stack it to the point it becomes a problem without severely gimping the character in other ways is highly doubtful.

[Sliver]

I don't consider the reasonable application of DM discretion to be a house rule.

Perhaps you should... "Reasonable" isn't quite the same for everybody.

[AmberVael]

I don't consider the reasonable application of DM discretion to be a house rule.

Here's the problem with that. Not only do you get a lot of different people thinking different things are reasonable... but the same person can think two different stances on the same subject are reasonable.

To use the current example, I really have no attachment to fast healing stacking or not. From a RAW perspective, I think it works, and from a balance perspective I see no problem with it. However, I can also see from another side that it might be preferable to say it doesn't, for general game coherency and consistency. While I can't find anything to say it shouldn't stack, not stacking IS the general rule of D&D, and it might be smoother and simpler in some ways to have fast healing adhere to that general principle.

In short, not only can you find different DMs making different rules under different assumptions of reasonable, you could even find the same DM making different rulings in separate games depending on what their focus is on (or what arguments they currently find persuasive, or depending on how they're feeling that day, or how much pizza you've bought them for that matter). There is no way for a DM changing, adding, or interpreting unclear rules to be consistent, and so regardless of how reasonable it is, it is a house rule. There's nothing wrong with that, it just has some implications for its relevance and place in different discussions.

Since this is a specific case, giving specific advice and suggesting houserules can be relevant and useful, though it won't necessarily have any impact on someone trying to explain the base state of the game rules.

[Lorddenorstrus]

{scrubbed}

[Roga]

You can stack however many Fast Healing effects you want, even from the same source like Wand of Lesser Vigor.
I'm now in the camp of Fast Healing not stacking as much as working in tandem, but I wanted to address this.


The effects of multiple vigor spells do not stack; only the highest-level effect applies. Applying a second vigor spell of equal level extends the first spell's duration by the full duration of the second spell.

So Vigor spells clearly don't stack with each other as much as extend, but the spell makes no mention of how the granted fast healing interacts with existing fast healing (If any).

[Seto]

I'd probably rule that only your highest fast-healing works. I'm thinking that because of templates and their application. Here's an example from the fast healing gained by the Feral template :

If the base creature possesses a duplicate ability, the feral creature has whichever ability is better.

I tend to interpret that as the way to treat an unlikely case of having two Fast healing features. Having said that, I understand that it also could be interpreted as "in the case of this template it works like this, but it doesn't affect how other cases work".

[Sliver]

Having said that, I understand that it also could be interpreted as "in the case of this template it works like this, but it doesn't affect how other cases work".

That's the only RAW-legal way to interpret this, since the template has no real authority over all other cases of duplicate abilities.

(Again, I myself play with only the best value of FH counting, but so far, there is no evidence that this is the case by RAW)

[Darkweave31]

If the OP lets Fast Healing stack in this case, the OP will need to allow Fast Healing effects to stack as a general rule on grounds of fairness alone.

Allowing two Fast Healing 5 effects to stack to become Fast Healing 10 seems like it would have an impact. Once you let the nose of the camel into the tent, the rest of the camel's body will soon follow.

Players rarely take into account the long term consequences of rulings like this. DMs don't have this luxury.

Maybe I'm used to higher optimization, but even fast healing 10 is all but useless in combats decided in 3 rounds or less. Even a 10 round combat, that's max 100 hp over 10 rounds. Compare that to a heal spell that not only cures more HP damage in a burst, but a variety of conditions as well. I'm assuming that this combination of classes get their fast healing at later levels. By that time enemies should be dealing way more damage than that and probably have special attacks that make hit points all but worthless. Fast healing is good for conserving healing resources out of combat. In combat it's almost useless unless it's high enough to regain a large percentage of incoming damage, maybe combined with high DR. But in general a small trickle of HP won't make a huge difference in combat.

That said, if I made a ruling on an unclear rule that later gets abused I have no qualms with reversing it and admitting that I didn't think it through. If the player purposefully took a ruling and abused it I'd need to talk to them about their continued participation in my games. I'm assuming the player doesn't have any malicious intent here.

[SinsI]

I'm now in the camp of Fast Healing not stacking as much as working in tandem, but I wanted to address this.



So Vigor spells clearly don't stack with each other as much as extend, but the spell makes no mention of how the granted fast healing interacts with existing fast healing (If any).

That's still stacking, just differently. No stacking would be if you only benefited from the one spell with the longest duration - but in this case you get the full benefit of all the Vigor spells you have, you don't lose any HP healing from it.

So it is actually a very strong support for the "FH stack" camp.

[Telok]

What are the two sources of fast healing? That may make a difference.

Also, should/does [Ex] fast healing stack with a Vigor spell?

[Roga]

That's still stacking, just differently. No stacking would be if you only benefited from the one spell with the longest duration - but in this case you get the full benefit of all the Vigor spells you have, you don't lose any HP healing from it.

So it is actually a very strong support for the "FH stack" camp.

What I mean is, Lesser Vigor granting 1 HP doesn't stack with Vigor granting 3 HP, since Vigor is the higher level vigor spell, you gain Fast Healing 3. The lesser one doesn't stack and cannot even extend the duration. The wording, I feel, is pretty clear on this. Feel free to check out the spell in its entirety. I can't post the whole thing since it's not SRD. The only way they stack is if you have 2 equal spell level vigor spells, and then the only stacking is duration.

[Roga]

What are the two sources of fast healing? That may make a difference.

Also, should/does [Ex] fast healing stack with a Vigor spell?

I feel they should. The Vigor spell clearly states that they don't stack with other Vigor spells, but make zero mention of not stacking with natural fast healing. Since fast healing is an extension of natural healing, it makes since it would interact positively with magical healing.

One argument against this point is that it's not magical healing in the full sense of the word. If a character has 15 nonlethal damage and 15 lethal damage, and receives a cure light wounds for 10(5th caster level, rolls a 5), he would heal 10 off both tracks, leaving him with 5 nonlethal and 5 lethal. Fast healing on the other hand, heals nonlethal first. So the same character with 15/15 gets a 5th caster level Lesser Vigor would gain fast healing 1 for 15 rounds. This would heal all 15 nonlethal, and still leave him with the full 15 lethal.

[ShaneMRoth]

What are the two sources of fast healing? That may make a difference.

Also, should/does [Ex] fast healing stack with a Vigor spell?

If the Fast Healing comes from the Epic Feat, then no.


...
This feat does not stack with fast healing granted by magic items or non-permanent magical effects.
... [Emphasis Added]

The Vigor spell effect is a non-permanent magical effect. It explicitly doesn't stack with at least one form of Fast Healing.

[Keltest]

It seems to me that, per the rules written, various sources of fast healing will stack with each other unless specifically noted otherwise. I cant find anything to indicate that there is only one fast healing effect allowed on a character at a time