whats a good feat from heroics other than power attack and martial study?

[newguydude1]

i want to get heroics because power attack makes my monsters really strong but once i get bite of the weretiger i dont need it because that spell gives power attack too. so i was wondering if i could use heroics for something else. if not i might grab another spell. dunno.

no martial study because my dm cant be bothered to learn maneuvers and such.

best i got is...
improved initiative
weapon focus: claw
which isnt that good. which is why i might just wait until level 12 and skip heroics in favor of another spell.

and thats it. cleave is worthless at the level im talking about (12+) cause majority of my damage is from multiple attacks with natural weapons.

for frame of reference think cornugon with persistent wraithstrike and persistent bite of the weretiger or werebear. he has 2 claws + 1 bite + 1 tail + 4 claws from girallons blessing + 1 rend + 2 claws from bite of the weretiger + 1 bite from bite of the were tiger
for a grand total of 8 claw attacks, 2 bite attacks, 1 tail attack, 1 rend attack which makes it 12 natural attacks. all with +12 or +16 strength and probably with the full +15 damage from power attack.

[daremetoidareyo]

Exotic weapon proficiency tail scythe?

[tiercel]

This seems to be one of the best existing threads (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?410635-Best-uses-for-Heroics)on the subject; while it does list a number of Tome of Battle options, it also talks about non-ToB feats which you may find situationally useful (e.g. Blindfight may not be worth having all the time, but it’s handy when you do need it; conversely, Spectral Skirmisher is cool for being invisible, but unless that’s your go-to strategy, and you can make it stick vs opponents who don’t see right through it, may not be a permanent feat choice)

[Gruftzwerg]

You already figured out that Martial Study would be a good choice. So why not take it to the next step?
Martial Stance and you don't need to waste a feat on Martial Study. Just get a Crown of the White Raven or equivalent and you can get a nice stance with Heroics.

[Kelb_Panthera]

There's not much. Even less if you're not targetting a character that uses equipment. The list of fighter bonus feats has a lot of good stuff in it but most of it has at least one or two feats as prerequisites.

The only thing that looks like an obvious choice without concern for equipment or prerequisites other than those mentioned in the OP is powerful charge from Minis Handbook. Couple extra d6s on a charge.

[Max Caysey]

This seems to be one of the best existing threads (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?410635-Best-uses-for-Heroics)on the subject; while it does list a number of Tome of Battle options, it also talks about non-ToB feats which you may find situationally useful (e.g. Blindfight may not be worth having all the time, but it’s handy when you do need it; conversely, Spectral Skirmisher is cool for being invisible, but unless that’s your go-to strategy, and you can make it stick vs opponents who don’t see right through it, may not be a permanent feat choice)

A question regarding the link... I looked through it, and found this:


I did a quick check of what I felt the most generally useful maneuvers were up to initiator level 6th (if you're not a martial initiator, you'd need to be 14 HD or higher to benefit from anything more). Tier 1 abilities can be granted with a single casting of heroics. A tier 2 ability would require a second casting, assuming the first casting was used to select an appropriate prerequisite. I paid special attention to abilities that are likely to be generally useful if you use War Weaver or Reach Spell + Chain Spell to share the buff across the whole party and all its cohorts, pets, minions, summoned creatures, etc.

Interesting ideas:

You can remove negative levels with two castings of heroics long before you can get access to restoration (select Martial Study: Wall of Blades and Martial Study: Iron Heart Surge). Saves you 100 gp too.
If you can share the spell around, two castings gets you Martial Study: Burning Blade plus Martial Stance: Holocaust Cloak. If shared onto a large group of summoned monsters that are able to make multiple attacks (such as claw/claw/bite) and take at least two hits to kill, you're potentially looking at 20 - 30 additional fire damage per critter.



Martial Study (choices up to initiator level 6th)
Tier 1
- Burning Blade (Desert Wind 1) (+1d6+6 fire on all attacks)
- Death Mark (Desert Wind 3) (normal damage + AoE 6d6 fire)
- Vanguard Strike (Devoted Spirit 1) (allies gain +4 attack vs foe)
- Action Before Thought (Diamond Mind 2) (Concentration vs Reflex save)
- Mind over Body (Diamond Mind 3) (Concentration vs Fortitude save)
- Wall of Blades (Iron Heart 2) (contested attack roll vs attack)
- Counter Charge (Setting Sun 1) (contested ability check vs charge attack)
- Cloak of Deception (Shadow Hand 2) (swift invisibility)
- Shadow Jaunt (Shadow Hand 2) (teleport 50 ft)
- Shadow Garrotte (Shadow Hand 3) (ranged touch 5d6 + flat-footed)
- Leading the Attack (White Raven 1) (allies gain +4 attack vs foe)

Tier 2

- Fan the Flames (Desert Wind 3) (ranged touch 6d6 fire)
- Holocaust Cloak (Desert Wind 3) (5 fire reactive damage)
- Zephyr Dance (Desert Wind 3) (+4 AC vs attack)
- Iron Guard's Glare*** (Devoted Spirit 1) (foes within reach take -4 vs allies)
- Martial Spirit*** (Devoted Spirit 1) (heal 2 with each hit)
- Revitalizing Strike (Devoted Spirit 3) (normal damage + heal 3d6+6)
- Thicket of Blades (Devoted Spirit 3) (hit shifting foe)
- Pearl of Black Doubt (Diamond Mind 3) (+2 AC each time foe misses)
- Absolute Steel Stance*** (Iron Heart 3) (+10 speed, +2 AC when moving)
- Iron Heart Surge (Iron Heart 3) (remove ongoing condition)
- Punishing Stance*** (Iron Heart 1) (+1d6 melee damage, -2 AC)
- Giant Killing Style*** (Setting Sun 3) (+2 attack, +4 damage vs big foes)
- Assassin's Stance*** (Shadow Hand 3) (+2d6 sneak attack)
- Dance of the Spider*** (Shadow Hand 3) (spider climb)
- Child of Shadow*** (Shadow Hand 2) (concealment if you move)
- Hunter's Sense*** (Tiger Claw 2) (gain scent)
- Bolstering Voice*** (White Raven 1) (allies gain +2 Will saves, +4 vs fear)
- Battle Leader's Charge (White Raven 2) (charge damage +10)
- Leading the Charge*** (White Raven 1) (allies gain +6 charge damage)
- White Raven Tactics (White Raven 3) (ally takes another turn)
- Tactics of the Wolf*** (White Raven 3) (allies gain +6 flank damage)

***Stance


So, I have a level 4 character, 1 Martial Rogue/ 3 Fighter whom I want to give Martial Study through the casting of Heroics... I have some questions regarding how this might work:
1) Why would I need a second casting of Heroics for me to gain access to Martial Spirit (Stance)? There seem to be no prerequisite that would require a second casting?
2) If I cast Heroics and use it to give Martial Study, on my level 4 character what initiator level would he count as, as in what level maneuvers would he gain access to through he use of Heroics?
3) Would I be correct in asserting that he would be able to gain access to any level 2 maneuvers, including Martial Spirit?
4) And if so, how long would it last - one round, one attack, one encounter or 10 min/ lvl?

Cheers!

[Aracor]

So, I have a level 4 character, 1 Martial Rogue/ 3 Fighter whom I want to give Martial Study through the casting of Heroics... I have some questions regarding how this might work:
1) Why would I need a second casting of Heroics for me to gain access to Martial Spirit (Stance)? There seem to be no prerequisite that would require a second casting?
Because the Martial Spirit feat has a requirement of you knowing one martial maneuver.

2) If I cast Heroics and use it to give Martial Study, on my level 4 character what initiator level would he count as, as in what level maneuvers would he gain access to through he use of Heroics?
You can learn any maneuver that you meet the prerequisites for, and your initiator level would be considered 2. Which means you could access any level 1 maneuver that doesn't have prerequisites.

3) Would I be correct in asserting that he would be able to gain access to any level 2 maneuvers, including Martial Spirit?
No, because his initiator level would need to be 3 to access level 2 maneuvers.

4) And if so, how long would it last - one round, one attack, one encounter or 10 min/ lvl?
A stances lasts until you turn it off or it gets turned off (arguably when the spell ends). And a maneuver can be used once per encounter or out of combat once every five minutes, per the description of the martial strike feat.

[Max Caysey]

Because the Martial Spirit feat has a requirement of you knowing one martial maneuver.

You can learn any maneuver that you meet the prerequisites for, and your initiator level would be considered 2. Which means you could access any level 1 maneuver that doesn't have prerequisites.

No, because his initiator level would need to be 3 to access level 2 maneuvers.

A stances lasts until you turn it off or it gets turned off (arguably when the spell ends). And a maneuver can be used once per encounter or out of combat once every five minutes, per the description of the martial strike feat.

Thank you for your great responce...

When trying to look up the prerequisites for Martial Spirit, I can't find any... could you perhaps reference the place where one might find them?

Cheers!

[Aracor]

Sorry, that's a typo. It should be the Martial Stance feat. Martial Spirit is the actual stance itself.

[Darg]

Sorry, that's a typo. It should be the Martial Stance feat. Martial Spirit is the actual stance itself.

This. The Martial Stance feat requires knowing one maneuver of the discipline you wish to get the stance from.

Despite what others say, heroics can't stack with itself. So if you cast it 5 times, only the most recent takes effect. As feats with requirements lose their benefit when you no longer have the prerequisites, even if you cast for a feat chain you wouldn't be able to benefit from the ending feat because you no longer possess the feats from earlier castings.

Relevant rule:


Same Effect with Differing Results

The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

[sreservoir]

Despite what others say, heroics can't stack with itself. So if you cast it 5 times, only the most recent takes effect. As feats with requirements lose their benefit when you no longer have the prerequisites, even if you cast for a feat chain you wouldn't be able to benefit from the ending feat because you no longer possess the feats from earlier castings.

Relevant rule:

This is a misreading caused by poor SRD editing. The example removed implies a much more limited restriction:


Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. For example, a series of polymorph spells might turn a creature into a mouse, a lion, and then a snail. In this case, the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

You can't actually, say, override a more harmful curse by casting bestow curse on yourself to give yourself -6 Cha. That would be silly. Successive polymorph effects can make earlier ones irrelevant because the effect makes them ... irrelevant, by effect. It's not a general rule that applies independently of effect semantics. You can cast heroics to get multiple different feats just fine.

[daremetoidareyo]

This is a misreading caused by poor SRD editing. The example removed implies a much more limited restriction:



You can't actually, say, override a more harmful curse by casting bestow curse on yourself to give yourself -6 Cha. That would be silly. Successive polymorph effects can make earlier ones irrelevant because the effect makes them ... irrelevant, by effect. It's not a general rule that applies independently of effect semantics. You can cast heroics to get multiple different feats just fine.

I dunno. I really want heroics to stack, but darg found a pretty resounding rule quote that I find it difficult to argue against Rules as written.

[sreservoir]

I dunno. I really want heroics to stack, but darg found a pretty resounding rule quote that I find it difficult to argue against Rules as written.

As I said, it's misedited from the PHB quote I cited above. The reading implied by the SRD version lets you override effects like bestow curse, geas, mark of justice, blindness/deafness(!) &c. by casting it with a different effect. This is clearly absurd.

[Melcar]

This. The Martial Stance feat requires knowing one maneuver of the discipline you wish to get the stance from.

Despite what others say, heroics can't stack with itself. So if you cast it 5 times, only the most recent takes effect. As feats with requirements lose their benefit when you no longer have the prerequisites, even if you cast for a feat chain you wouldn't be able to benefit from the ending feat because you no longer possess the feats from earlier castings.

Relevant rule:

So, casting multiple Energy Immunity will only yield the effects of the last casting? ... I think not!

[Aracor]

Here is the complete message on stacking from the Player's Handbook, page 171-172.


Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. For example, two bless spells don’t give twice the benefit of one bless. Both bless spells, however, continue to act simultaneously, and if one ends first, the other one continues to operate for the remainder of its duration. Likewise, two haste spells do not make the creature doubly fast.

More generally, two bonuses of the same type don’t stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above). For example, the enhancement bonus to Strength from a bull’s strength spell and the enhancement bonus to Strength from a divine power spell don’t stack. You use whichever bonus gives you the better Strength score. In the same way, a belt of giant Strength gives you an enhancement bonus to Strength, which does not stack with the bonus you get from a bull’s strength spell.

Different Bonus Names: The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different types. For example, bless provides a +1 morale bonus on saves against fear effects, and protection from evil provides a +2 resistance bonus on saves against spells cast by evil creatures. A character under the influence of spells gets a +1 bonus against all fear effects, a +2 bonus against spells cast by evil beings, and a +3 bonus against fear spells cast by evil creatures.

A bonus that isn’t named (just a “+2 bonus” rather than a “+2 resistance bonus”) stacks with any bonus.

Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the best one applies. For example, if a character takes a –4 penalty to Strength from a ray of enfeeblement spell and then receives a second ray of enfeeblement spell that applies a –6 penalty, he or she takes only the –6 penalty. Both spells are still operating on the character, however. If one ray of enfeeblement spell is dispelled or its duration runs out, the other spell remains in effect, assuming that its duration has not yet expired.

Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. For example, a series of polymorph spells might turn a creature into a mouse, a lion, and then a snail. In this case, the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant: Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. For example, if a wizard is using a shapechange spell to take the shape of an eagle, a polymorph spell could change her into a goldfish. The shapechange spell is not negated, however, and since the polymorph spell has no effect on the recipient’s special abilities, the wizard could use the shapechange effect to take any form the spell allows whenever she desires. If a creature using a shapechange effect becomes petrified by a flesh to stone spell, however, it turns into a mindless, inert statue, and the shapechange effect cannot help it escape.

Multiple Mental Control Effects: Sometimes magical effects that establish mental control render each other irrelevant. For example, a hold person effect renders any other form of mental control irrelevant because it robs the subject of the ability to move. Mental controls that don’t remove the recipient’s ability to act usually do not interfere with each other. For example, a person who has received a geas/quest spell can also be subjected to a charm person spell. The charmed person remains committed to fulfilling the quest, however, and resists any order that interferes with that goal. In this case, the geas/quest spell doesn’t negate charm person, but it does reduce its effectiveness, just as nonmagical devotion to a quest would. If a creature is under the mental control of two or more creatures, it tends to obey each to the best of its ability, and to the extent of the control each effect allows. If the controlled creature receives conflicting orders simultaneously, the competing controllers must make opposed Charisma checks to determine which one the creature obeys.

I'm pretty sure "same effect with differing results" applies here. The same effect (Heroics spell) provides differing results (different feats). None of the previous effects are removed, except in the specific case of heroics, the intermediary effects are NOT irrelevant when compared to the final result. So they aren't actually removed or dispelled, and thus still apply.

[daremetoidareyo]

Here is the complete message on stacking from the Player's Handbook, page 171-172.



I'm pretty sure "same effect with differing results" applies here. The same effect (Heroics spell) provides differing results (different feats). None of the previous effects are removed, except in the specific case of heroics, the intermediary effects are NOT irrelevant when compared to the final result. So they aren't actually removed or dispelled, and thus still apply.

In which case, you can move up the feat chain to access the best feat in a series.

[Darg]

Well, temporary hit points don't say they dont stack and they aren't a bonus. I guess I could stack Aid spells for a large amount of temporary HP huh? I guess you could listen to the faq, but not everyone does.

[Melcar]

Well, temporary hit points don't say they dont stack and they aren't a bonus. I guess I could stack Aid spells for a large amount of temporary HP huh? I guess you could listen to the faq, but not everyone does.

Obviously not... because that is the same bonus, gained from the same spell. So thats like casting multiple bless... However you can gain total elemental immunity from casting elemental immunity 5 times... just like you can gain multiple feats from casting multiple Heroics!

[Max Caysey]

Sorry, that's a typo. It should be the Martial Stance feat. Martial Spirit is the actual stance itself.


This. The Martial Stance feat requires knowing one maneuver of the discipline you wish to get the stance from.

Despite what others say, heroics can't stack with itself. So if you cast it 5 times, only the most recent takes effect. As feats with requirements lose their benefit when you no longer have the prerequisites, even if you cast for a feat chain you wouldn't be able to benefit from the ending feat because you no longer possess the feats from earlier castings.

Relevant rule:

Ok, so on page 5 in ToB a stance in designated as a maneuver - albeit a special one - so why can't you choose a stance when taking the feat Martial Study? I mean, Martial Study says: "choose any maneuver, and since a stance is a maneuver, it should be perfectly within the rules to chose a stance with Martial Study... so why can't I do this?

Cheers!

[Gruftzwerg]

Well, temporary hit points don't say they dont stack and they aren't a bonus. I guess I could stack Aid spells for a large amount of temporary HP huh? I guess you could listen to the faq, but not everyone does.

3.5 is permission based ruling.

We have rules for what you may stack and how they stack.

We have rules for stacking damage

We have rules for multiplying

And we have rules how modifiers stack (declared as bonuses and penalties to a DICE-ROLL in 3.5)

So.. no, you may not stack temporary hit points, because we lack the permission for it..^^

Have a look at the Basics (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm)for reference.
______________________

Everything boils down to the point that Heroics won't stack with itself because you have no rule base to allow its effect to stack. Because same spell with different effect, and the previous instance(s) become suppressed. Which brings us to the rule that you need the fulfill the requirements (for feats) not only to obtain them, but also to use em.
So you would get the last feat (from a maximum of 2 chained feats) from Heroics, but it would be useless since you can't use it anymore due to the lack of prerequisites...^^

Again, best way to solve this for Martial Study is by buying a Crown of the White Raven or equivalent for the required Maneuver.

edit: adjusted a sentence to prevent misinterpretation.

[Gruftzwerg]

Ok, so on page 5 in ToB a stance in designated as a maneuver - albeit a special one - so why can't you choose a stance when taking the feat Martial Study? I mean, Martial Study says: "choose any maneuver, and since a stance is a maneuver, it should be perfectly within the rules to chose a stance with Martial Study... so why can't I do this?

Cheers!

Stances count as Maneuver only for the purpose of Stance/Maneuver requirements (when picking more stances/maneuvers) and for nothing else. Reread the part that states this.

[sreservoir]

Well, temporary hit points don't say they dont stack and they aren't a bonus. I guess I could stack Aid spells for a large amount of temporary HP huh? I guess you could listen to the faq, but not everyone does.

That may fall under "Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths", which is a totally different heading—but also, like, sure? The temp hp from aid is basically on par with casting CLW after combat, at a spell level higher, and it isn't backed by spontaneous casting from a class feature of a rather popular Core class? I'm not sure it'd be problematic even if it did stack, which it admittedly probably does by RAW on account of not being a bonus per se. What point does this even make?

[Gruftzwerg]

That may fall under "Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths", which is a totally different heading—but also, like, sure? The temp hp from aid is basically on par with casting CLW after combat, at a spell level higher, and it isn't backed by spontaneous casting from a class feature of a rather popular Core class? I'm not sure it'd be problematic even if it did stack, which it admittedly probably does by RAW on account of not being a bonus per se. What point does this even make?

the fact that it is not a bonus takes your permission to stack it as mentioned.

[newguydude1]

Obviously not... because that is the same bonus, gained from the same spell. So thats like casting multiple bless... However you can gain total elemental immunity from casting elemental immunity 5 times... just like you can gain multiple feats from casting multiple Heroics!

no you cant. the others are right. same spell different effects. only last one is active. first casting of energy immunity gives you fire immunity. second casting gives you lightning immunity. third casting gives you acid immunity. but its all the same spell, and they all give different effects, so only the last one is active. if it doesnt make sense to you then blame raw. raw doesnt make sense a lot of times.

likewise the bestow curse being negated by a worse bestow curse is how raw works. like drown healing.

[Aracor]

no you cant. the others are right. same spell different effects. only last one is active. first casting of energy immunity gives you fire immunity. second casting gives you lightning immunity. third casting gives you acid immunity. but its all the same spell, and they all give different effects, so only the last one is active. if it doesnt make sense to you then blame raw. raw doesnt make sense a lot of times.

likewise the bestow curse being negated by a worse bestow curse is how raw works. like drown healing.

Please cite that. The specific example it has in my quote is an example in which the previous effects ARE rendered irrelevant because of the specific series of spells in use. It even calls out and explicitly states that the other effects are not negated or dispelled, but that they are still active. The example is being polymorphed into a mouse, a lion, and then a snail, and it says the polymorph into a mouse and lion are still there, simply irrelevant. This means if someone dispels the snail form only, the creature would become a lion (since the other spells are still active). It's possible that a targeted dispelling could remove both the lion and mouse form, but the creature would still be a snail. Or dispel the snail and lion form, and still be stuck as a mouse.

So in YOUR example, Energy Immunity gives you first fire, then lightning, then acid immunity. Since acid immunity does NOT render fire and lightning immunity irrelevant, then those two effects are still active.

If I'm wrong, please demonstrate somewhere in the text that says casting Energy Immunity a second time turns off the first one.

[newguydude1]

If I'm wrong, please demonstrate somewhere in the text that says casting Energy Immunity a second time turns off the first one.

its in the quote you quoted. except without the house rule to get what you want.


The same spell
energy immunity is the same spell as energy immunity


The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once.
energy immunity produces fire immunity, ice immunity, etc. if applied to the same recipient more than once.


For example, a series of polymorph spells might turn a creature into a mouse, a lion, and then a snail.
energy immunity might grant a creature fire immunity, then ice immunity, then lightning immunity


In this case, the last spell in the series trumps the others.
last spell trumps the others. so the last energy immunity trumps the others.


None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.
none of the earlier energy immunities are removed, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series last.

repeating for emphasis.

The same spell
and

their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

done and done. we went through every sentence and did exactly as the sentences told us to do.




but that they are still active.

no it says theyre not active.


None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

right here your adding a house rule. your trying to add the house rule that the same spell doesnt make the previous castings irrelevant in certain special circumstances and it does make previous castings irrelevant in certain special different circumstances.

there is no circumstance where the previous castings of the same spells become relevant or irrelevant. in all cases all previous castings become irrelvant. we went through step by step and did not find a single sentence that said under special circumstances previous castings dont become irrelvant.

[Gruftzwerg]

So in YOUR example, Energy Immunity gives you first fire, then lightning, then acid immunity. Since acid immunity does NOT render fire and lightning immunity irrelevant, then those two effects are still active.

If I'm wrong, please demonstrate somewhere in the text that says casting Energy Immunity a second time turns off the first one.


Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. For example, a series of polymorph spells might turn a creature into a mouse, a lion, and then a snail. In this case, the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.


The very last sentence causes that all other instances of the "same effect with differing results" get suppressed while the last instance of the spell lasts.

This causes Energy Immunity to not stack with itself. Only the last instance is active while the others get suppressed and irrelevant unless you get dispelled.

And in chase of Bestow Curse it's the same, only the last effect is active, while the others are suppressed (but still there). They only become relevant when you try to get rid of the curses due to their permanent duration.

[JNAProductions]

If you're hit with Polymorph for 16 minutes, into a lion, then one minute in, hit with a seven minute Polymorph into a turtle, what happens after the turtle duration is up?

[Gruftzwerg]

If you're hit with Polymorph for 16 minutes, into a lion, then one minute in, hit with a seven minute Polymorph into a turtle, what happens after the turtle duration is up?

16-1-7= 8 minutes left for lion.

edit: to clarify
when the turtle poly ends, the lion poly becomes the last instance of the spell and thus becomes active / doesn't get suppressed anymore.

[Aracor]

There's a problem, though. You're completely ignoring something that it actually says!


The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once.
That is flat-out permission for the same effect to apply to the recipient more than once.

When it says "in this case" - it's referring to an example of polymorph. Do you understand how being polymorphed multiple times makes a previous polymorph irrelevant? BECAUSE THEY'RE A NEW CREATURE! That does not mean that "this case" applies to EVERY case that involves two of the same spells cast upon the same creature.

You can't ignore the sentence I quoted, then replace one example with another and assume it's all the same. The effect of multiple polymorph spells are irrelevant specifically because the recipient can be in only one shape at any given time. You can't just replace polymorph with another example and assume it's all the same. Unless you can demonstrate there's something preventing a creature immune to lightning from being immune to fire at the same time? It's pretty easy to explain why a creature in the shape of a snail cannot be in the shape of a lion or a mouse.


There's no house rule. You're just assuming that an example that it even specifies is an example applies to everything.


none of the earlier energy immunities are removed, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series last.

This right here: There's a problem with your logic. You're specifically saying that none of the earlier immunities are removed. Why exactly (if they still exist) are they irrelevant when the final spell in the series is cast?

The example (that it specifies is an example, which means it's not all-encompassing) applies in the example's case because a recipient can only have one shape at a time.

[Gruftzwerg]

There's a problem, though. You're completely ignoring something that it actually says!


That is flat-out permission for the same effect to apply to the recipient more than once.

When it says "in this case" - it's referring to an example of polymorph. Do you understand how being polymorphed multiple times makes a previous polymorph irrelevant? BECAUSE THEY'RE A NEW CREATURE! That does not mean that "this case" applies to EVERY case that involves two of the same spells cast upon the same creature.

You can't ignore the sentence I quoted, then replace one example with another and assume it's all the same. The effect of multiple polymorph spells are irrelevant specifically because the recipient can be in only one shape at any given time. You can't just replace polymorph with another example and assume it's all the same. Unless you can demonstrate there's something preventing a creature immune to lightning from being immune to fire at the same time? It's pretty easy to explain why a creature in the shape of a snail cannot be in the shape of a lion or a mouse.


There's no house rule. You're just assuming that an example that it even specifies is an example applies to everything.

There is only 1 example given for the scenario and also only 1 option how to handle the scenario. The quote you posted only describes the scenario where you have to apply the rule that is mentioned further below in the paragraph.

edit:
you try to read the polymorph example as an specific exception, but it is written as "example".
example != exception

[Aracor]

There is only 1 example given for the scenario and also only 1 option how to handle the scenario. The quote you posted only describes the scenario where you have to apply the rule that is mentioned further below in the paragraph.

No, there are two options. The second option is provided in the original rule:


The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once.

So the rule itself says that the same spell can produce varying effects. It then uses a complicated example where the spells in a sequence do actually affect the final form. In a more basic example (such as Energy Immunity), the original rule suffices. Energy Immunity an create multiple immunity effects on the same recipient when applied more than once.

[Gruftzwerg]

Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once.
...
but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.



1. you name a rule "Same Effect with Differing Results:"
2. you describe what the rule is talking about and when to apply it "The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once."
3. you explain what to do in that scenario (the actual rule) "(example)... but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts."

This is how you write a rule so that it makes sense anywhere by simple logic, not 3.5 specific. Any game and even laws follow this "unwritten rule"... common sense base logic

[Melcar]

1. you name a rule "Same Effect with Differing Results:"
2. you describe what the rule is talking about and when to apply it "The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once."
3. you explain what to do in that scenario (the actual rule) "(example)... but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts."

This is how you write a rule so that it makes sense anywhere by simple logic, not 3.5 specific. Any game and even laws follow this "unwritten rule"... common sense base logic

I think the strictness of the RAW is too much at this point. Just like drown healing shouldn't be a thing, so too should it be possible to stack multiple castings of Energy Immunity... Why, because even if it weren't, you can make 4 new custom versions (1 for each element) and cast them, making it 5 different spells. Since there is really no reason for such hoops to jump through, its possible!

Same thing goes with Heroics...

[Aracor]

1. you name a rule "Same Effect with Differing Results:"
2. you describe what the rule is talking about and when to apply it "The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once."
3. you explain what to do in that scenario (the actual rule) "(example)... but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts."

This is how you write a rule so that it makes sense anywhere by simple logic, not 3.5 specific. Any game and even laws follow this "unwritten rule"... common sense base logic

But here's what you're ignoring. The actual text of the rule is ONLY this part.


The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once.

That is the ENTIRE text of the rule itself. So if you're looking at the rule itself, that's all you look at. Which means if I cast Energy Immunity to make myself immune to fire, it works. If I cast Energy Immunity AGAIN to make myself immune to acid, then I reference the rule. The rule says that the same spell can produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once.

Is immunity to acid a different effect then immunity to fire? Yes. Okay, reference over. The same spell can do that per the rule, because the effects vary.


An example is simply that. An example of how to apply the rule in a specific situation. The example doesn't actually contain the rule itself.

[daremetoidareyo]

1. you name a rule "Same Effect with Differing Results:"
2. you describe what the rule is talking about and when to apply it "The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once."
3. you explain what to do in that scenario (the actual rule) "(example)... but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts."

This is how you write a rule so that it makes sense anywhere by simple logic, not 3.5 specific. Any game and even laws follow this "unwritten rule"... common sense base logic

I mean, we all interpret source material differently. The polymorph example being the sole example of a spell that falls under same effect/differing results rule makes it seem that the final spell temporarily overwrites the effects of previous spells.

If they had another example wherein the resistance spell is demonstrated to work in the manner according to your appeal to common sense, that would be helpfully illustrative. Instead we have this thing.

[Gruftzwerg]

The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once.

This describes the circumstances under which the rule is meant to be used.
Than it gives 1 example and 1 way to handle it.

Polymorph is meant as example! Not as an exception! There is not the slightest indicator for that.

[Aracor]

This describes the circumstances under which the rule is meant to be used.
Than it gives 1 example and 1 way to handle it.

Polymorph is meant as example! Not as an exception! There is not the slightest indicator for that.

Okay, then please tell me: If the example was not there, and the ONLY text you had to reference is what's in your quote...how would you rule Energy Immunity worked? Would multiple energy immunity spells grant multiple immunities as long as different elements were selected?

[Gruftzwerg]

I think the strictness of the RAW is too much at this point. Just like drown healing shouldn't be a thing, so too should it be possible to stack multiple castings of Energy Immunity... Why, because even if it weren't, you can make 4 new custom versions (1 for each element) and cast them, making it 5 different spells. Since there is really no reason for such hoops to jump through, its possible!

Same thing goes with Heroics...

You could make 4 custom versions of it sure (if you want to waste your resources/WBL for that) and than they would stack. But I don't see why this should be seen as reason to change how RAW handles spells?

[newguydude1]

This right here: There's a problem with your logic. You're specifically saying that none of the earlier immunities are removed. Why exactly (if they still exist) are they irrelevant when the final spell in the series is cast?

The example (that it specifies is an example, which means it's not all-encompassing) applies in the example's case because a recipient can only have one shape at a time.

your not understanding how this works. the earlier spells become irrelevant because they are inactive.
if i cast bulls strength and fist of stone, bulls strength is not dispelled but it is irrelevant until fist of stone ends.
so if i cast energy immunity and energy immunity, the first energy immunity is not dispelled but it is irrelevant until the second energy immunity ends.

same spell. different effects. only last one is active. rest are irrelevant until the last one ends. just like fist of stone makes bull strength irrelevant without dispelling it, energy immunity (aka the same spell) makes all previous castings irrelevant until it ends.

i cant explain it better than this. last one turns earlier ones off. the end.

[Gruftzwerg]

Okay, then please tell me: If the example was not there, and the ONLY text you had to reference is what's in your quote...how would you rule Energy Immunity worked? Would multiple energy immunity spells grant multiple immunities as long as different elements were selected?

If we skip the example given only the last two sentence remain with the actual rule to apply:


In this case, the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

So, are we done here?

[Aracor]

your not understanding how this works. the earlier spells become irrelevant because they are inactive.
if i cast bulls strength and fist of stone, bulls strength is not dispelled but it is irrelevant until fist of stone ends.
Agreed, because the effects provide the same bonus at different strengths. That's covered in the rules already.

so if i cast energy immunity and energy immunity, the first energy immunity is not dispelled but it is irrelevant until the second energy immunity ends.


same spell. different effects. only last one is active. rest are irrelevant until the last one ends. just like fist of stone makes bull strength irrelevant without dispelling it, energy immunity (aka the same spell) makes all previous castings irrelevant until it ends.

i cant explain it better than this. last one turns earlier ones off. the end.
I'll give you the same challenge I gave to Gruftzwerg: Now explain how the rules say that without using the example. Since logically, the example can only clarify the rules, it cannot CHANGE the rules. If it changes the rules, it's not an example.

Here is the entire text of the rule for reference:
The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once.

[Aracor]

So, are we done here?
No, because the phrase "in this case" is clearly referencing the case, or example, mentioned above. Which means that clause is still part of the example. And since the final sentence is clearly still referencing the example series, that means they are BOTH referencing the example case. Which means they are explaining the rules, but cannot be changing them.

So the challenge still stands. How would you rule Energy Immunity works using only the first sentence without the example or any sentences referencing it?

[Melcar]

You could make 4 custom versions of it sure (if you want to waste your resources/WBL for that) and than they would stack. But I don't see why this should be seen as reason to change how RAW handles spells?

Well first off, I disagree with you on how RAW works in this case... so no I see no need to change raw, since at my table they stack... I'm simple stating that its possible to achieve the effect I wanted, even by your reading, by making one spell into 5 different. And since it would make me achieve my goal even under your reading of the rules, I personally don't see the reason to stick to rigidly to a raw ruling that disallows the effect to be achieved... So I'm either achieving the effect I want or I'm achieving the effect I want... Might as well just achieve the effect I want....

But I guess we differ on that too...

Secondly, it would be 28k to achieve full elemental immunity... if you think that's a waste of resources, you and I play very different games...

[Gruftzwerg]

Agreed, because the effects provide the same bonus at different strengths. That's covered in the rules already.

I'll give you the same challenge I gave to Gruftzwerg: Now explain how the rules say that without using the example. Since logically, the example can only clarify the rules, it cannot CHANGE the rules. If it changes the rules, it's not an example.

Here is the entire text of the rule for reference:

let's try it again (while I wait for you answer to my post^^).



The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once.


This doesn't tell you anything about what you should do. It only talks about the circumstance/scenario "when" the same spell produce varying effects on the same recipient more than once.

It doesn't tell you what happens to these "effects".
It doesn't tell you if all effects are active or not. Which means that you aren't given the permission to stack their effects yet.

The last 2 sentences tell you what to do.



In this case, the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

[Gruftzwerg]

Well first off, I disagree with you on how RAW works in this case... so no I see no need to change raw, since at my table they stack... I'm simple stating that its possible to achieve the effect I wanted, even by your reading, by making one spell into 5 different. And since it would make me achieve my goal even under your reading of the rules, I personally don't see the reason to stick to rigidly to a raw ruling that disallows the effect to be achieved... So I'm either achieving the effect I want or I'm achieving the effect I want... Might as well just achieve the effect I want....

But I guess we differ on that too...

Secondly, its 28k to achieve full elemental immunity... if you think that's a waste of resources, you and I play very different games...

You are ignoring the resources needed and thus made your own houserule and that is fine for your table. But it ain't raw.
"I can have Whirlwind if I go down the feat chain and expend resources for the Prerequisites. But hey, lets ignore the needed feats, cause they are crap" is also a nice houserule. I hope you get the point. I'm not judging your houserules. Just pointing em out as such and not as RAW. ;)

edit: we should also keep in mind that these things (Energy Immunity, Whirlwind..) are balanced around the rules how they are. If you ignore that, you make em stronger than intended. May not be game breaking, but we should all keep that in mind when applying these kind of houserules).

[Melcar]

You are ignoring the resources needed and thus made your own houserule and that is fine for your table. But it ain't raw.
"I can have Whirlwind if I go down the feat chain and expend resources for the Prerequisites. But hey, lets ignore the needed feats, cause they are crap" is also a nice houserule. I hope you get the point. I'm not judging your houserules. Just pointing em out as such and not as RAW. ;)

I clearly just read the rules differently... We clearly does not agree and we wont... I personally think that at this point any further discussion will be futile. I too believe the rule is: "the same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once" and then it shows an example of what happens with polymorph only... other spells like elemental immunity clearly does not follow the same logic as polymorph because its not at all the same. Because if you change from one form (A) to another (B), you are now B, rendering form A irrelevant... unless you become a hybrid... but you can clearly have multiple immunities running... they are not mutually exclusive...

But at this point we both believe we read the rules as written...and we both do, but we clearly interpret it differently... at this point the discussion is futile!

[Gruftzwerg]

...then it shows an example of what happens with polymorph ..

I've bold the important part. EXAMPLE not EXCEPTION.

Example: These rule are meant to apply to every kind of such situation/circumstance.

Exception: These rule talk about specific things that are ruled different from base ruling.

The rule in our chase only talks about an example and not an exception, 2 different things. And you are trying to read the polymorph example as exception, which is simply wrong by RAW.

[newguydude1]

Agreed, because the effects provide the same bonus at different strengths. That's covered in the rules already.

I'll give you the same challenge I gave to Gruftzwerg: Now explain how the rules say that without using the example. Since logically, the example can only clarify the rules, it cannot CHANGE the rules. If it changes the rules, it's not an example.

Here is the entire text of the rule for reference:

you remove the example your stuck with the first and last sentence. dont try to remove rule text. dont try to remove raw. its not how the rules work.


Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

this is the example-less quote. dont try to delete the rules because they dont say what you want it to say.

[Darg]

other spells like elemental immunity clearly does not follow the same logic as polymorph because its not at all the same.

It's the same effect with varying results. As mentioned earlier in the thread, Bestow Curse is a unique case.


You place a curse on the subject. Choose one of the following three effects.

-6 decrease to an ability score (minimum 1).
-4 penalty on attack rolls, saves, ability checks, and skill checks.
Each turn, the target has a 50% chance to act normally; otherwise, it takes no action.

You may also invent your own curse, but it should be no more powerful than those described above.

The curse bestowed by this spell cannot be dispelled, but it can be removed with a break enchantment, limited wish, miracle, remove curse, or wish spell.

Bestow curse counters remove curse.

Notice how it says that you choose a different effect? Polymorph isn't a different effect. It's the same effect with varying results. This distinction also applies to Energy Immunity. This means that new castings of Energy Immunity make previous castings irrelevant.

The argument that polymorph makes other castings irrelevant by its own nature falls under the rules for One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant.

[ciopo]

my 4 copper on this different effect same source

first 2 coppers
on the text of energy immunity itself it is stated that

The effect of this spell does not stack with similar effects,
such as resist energy and protection from energy, that protect
against the same energy type. If a character is warded with
energy immunity (fire) and is also receiving resistance to fire
from one or more of the other spells, the energy immunity
makes the other spells irrelevant. However, it is possible to
be simultaneously under the effect of energy immunity (fire)
and resist energy (electricity), or any other two such spells that
protect against different types of energy
"any other two such spells" implies clearly that it could be two energy immunity, or two resist energy etc.

second 2 coppers : I've seen in published modules, enemy caster being statted / described /presented as "they are under the effect of resist energy (fire) and resist energy (lightning)" or other such combination of multiple resistances from buffs they casted on themself, the specific examples right now eludes me and I'm on lunch break at work, but I'm 100% sure of this.

on Heroics itself : I'm partial to improved trip, but the prerequisite is bleh

[Aracor]

let's try it again (while I wait for you answer to my post^^).

This doesn't tell you anything about what you should do. It only talks about the circumstance/scenario "when" the same spell produce varying effects on the same recipient more than once.

It doesn't tell you what happens to these "effects".
It doesn't tell you if all effects are active or not. Which means that you aren't given the permission to stack their effects yet.

The last 2 sentences tell you what to do.

How does it NOT? It says the same spell cast more than once can apply varying effects! Since the word effects is plural, that means that a single spell cast multiple times can create multiple effects on the recipient. The example it uses is a spell that (based on how the spell itself works) cannot create multiple effects at the same time, because the recipient can have only one shape at any given time. To argue that polymorph can do that would be to argue that the example sequence could end up as a mouse, lion, snail hybrid.


I've bold the important part. EXAMPLE not EXCEPTION.

Example: These rule are meant to apply to every kind of such situation/circumstance.

Exception: These rule talk about specific things that are ruled different from base ruling.

The rule in our chase only talks about an example and not an exception, 2 different things. And you are trying to read the polymorph example as exception, which is simply wrong by RAW.
Incorrect. Examples are not necessarily all-encompassing. That's why they're defined as an example. You're right that an example is not necessarily an exception, either. But they can be a narrow demonstration of a broad rule.

I'll use a real-world demonstration. "All cooking ranges need to have a source of heat. For example, a range may need to be plugged into an electrical outlet."
That doesn't mean electricity is the only way for a range to have heat. There are also gas ranges, which don't need electricity to generate heat. It's also possible for a range to be powered by coal or wood fire. Wouldn't be considered modern by today's standards, but it would still be functional.


you remove the example your stuck with the first and last sentence. dont try to remove rule text. dont try to remove raw. its not how the rules work.

Let me bold the parts that link the final two sentences to the example.


The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. For example, a series of polymorph spells might turn a creature into a mouse, a lion, and then a snail. In this case, the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

No other series is referenced in the rule, so that last sentence is still going back to reference the example.

[liquidformat]

i want to get heroics because power attack makes my monsters really strong but once i get bite of the weretiger i dont need it because that spell gives power attack too. so i was wondering if i could use heroics for something else. if not i might grab another spell. dunno.

no martial study because my dm cant be bothered to learn maneuvers and such.

best i got is...
improved initiative
weapon focus: claw
which isnt that good. which is why i might just wait until level 12 and skip heroics in favor of another spell.

and thats it. cleave is worthless at the level im talking about (12+) cause majority of my damage is from multiple attacks with natural weapons.

for frame of reference think cornugon with persistent wraithstrike and persistent bite of the weretiger or werebear. he has 2 claws + 1 bite + 1 tail + 4 claws from girallons blessing + 1 rend + 2 claws from bite of the weretiger + 1 bite from bite of the were tiger
for a grand total of 8 claw attacks, 2 bite attacks, 1 tail attack, 1 rend attack which makes it 12 natural attacks. all with +12 or +16 strength and probably with the full +15 damage from power attack.

You should only have 1 bite and 6 claws, bite of weretiger/werebear doesn't give you more bites and claws if you already have them it just replaces the damage as per the spell.


So, casting multiple Energy Immunity will only yield the effects of the last casting? ... I think not!

no you cant. the others are right. same spell different effects. only last one is active. first casting of energy immunity gives you fire immunity. second casting gives you lightning immunity. third casting gives you acid immunity. but its all the same spell, and they all give different effects, so only the last one is active. if it doesnt make sense to you then blame raw. raw doesnt make sense a lot of times.

likewise the bestow curse being negated by a worse bestow curse is how raw works. like drown healing.
Please read the spell in question, in the case of Energy Immunity you have a case of specific overrides general as the Energy Immunity spell itself tells you the spell stacks with itself as long as you choose a different energy type to be immune to each time. Therefore, it is a horrible example to be using in this argument because either way Energy Immunity spell gives permission for for how and when it stacks inside the spell itself.


1. you name a rule "Same Effect with Differing Results:"
2. you describe what the rule is talking about and when to apply it "The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once."
3. you explain what to do in that scenario (the actual rule) "(example)... but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts."

This is how you write a rule so that it makes sense anywhere by simple logic, not 3.5 specific. Any game and even laws follow this "unwritten rule"... common sense base logic
Your logic is ok but your missing the most important step and therefore coming to an incorrect conclusion
4. Read the spell/feat/effect/class feature/etc.
This is the most important step in the whole process as quite often the thing in question has alternate rules inside of itself that change the conclusion you would otherwise make...

[Segev]

For one thing to trump another, they must be in conflict. Multiple polymorph spells would conflict because each effect changes the whole form. Thus, the last one trumps, setting the form, but the others remain in effect “underneath” until they run out. If the last one is dispelled, the one beneath is in effect.

When there is no conflict, they are all still in effect, just like before. Multiple castings of energy resistance don’t stack for the same energy type, but would not conflict to have all working if they’re different types, and so they all work. There is no “trumping” of previous ones because there is no conflict. Same for multiple applications of Animal Affinity is applied to different stats.

Heroics doesn’t conflict with itself if granting multiple different feats. There’s nothing to trump. No need to see which effect trumps the other because they all function together just fine without conflict.

[AnimeTheCat]

your not understanding how this works. the earlier spells become irrelevant because they are inactive.
if i cast bulls strength and fist of stone, bulls strength is not dispelled but it is irrelevant until fist of stone ends.
so if i cast energy immunity and energy immunity, the first energy immunity is not dispelled but it is irrelevant until the second energy immunity ends.
This is a false equivalency. You are comparing A+B to C+C. The issue here is not whether two enhancement bonuses would stack, that is covered by a different rule. The issue is whether two different bonuses from the same spell would remain functional. I see what you tried to say here, but the statement you made is not an appropriate analogy. Bull's Strength and Fist of Stone don't stack with each other because they both grant Enhancement type bonuses to the Strength score, which don't stack due to the fact that they are both enhancement type bonuses.

[Anthrowhale]

W.r.t. the OP, combat reflexes can potentially provide a good source of additional damage in a number of circumstances. It tends to be more impressive at lower levels, but even at a high level bonus attacks with your most damaging weapon are good.

[Darg]

No other series is referenced in the rule, so that last sentence is still going back to reference the example.

The rule is the whole paragraph. The general rule is that spells with bonuses and penalties to attributes don't stack with themselves. That's the baseline. A feat is an attribute of character level just as HP is or even ability score. That's the reason why temporary HP from multiple castings of Aid doesn't stack. That's the reason why Heroics wouldn't stack with itself. The same effects with differing results rule explains what happens when such a scenario comes along.


For one thing to trump another, they must be in conflict. Multiple polymorph spells would conflict because each effect changes the whole form. Thus, the last one trumps, setting the form, but the others remain in effect “underneath” until they run out. If the last one is dispelled, the one beneath is in effect.

When there is no conflict, they are all still in effect, just like before. Multiple castings of energy resistance don’t stack for the same energy type, but would not conflict to have all working if they’re different types, and so they all work. There is no “trumping” of previous ones because there is no conflict. Same for multiple applications of Animal Affinity is applied to different stats.

Heroics doesn’t conflict with itself if granting multiple different feats. There’s nothing to trump. No need to see which effect trumps the other because they all function together just fine without conflict.

The trumping is due to having the same effect that provides the same bonus. The baseline rule is that bonuses from the same spell don't stack. Animal affinity is actually a great example of this. It costs 3 pp to cast and 5 for every other bonus you get. Why bother having an increased cost to augment when you could simply cast it multiple times for the same effect up to 12 pp cheaper. The power doesn't stack with itself, but you can increase the benefit effect by spending pp.

[Gruftzwerg]

..
"any other two such spells" implies clearly that it could be two energy immunity, or two resist energy etc.
..
second 2 coppers : I've seen in published modules, enemy caster being statted / described /presented as "they are under the effect of resist energy (fire) and resist energy (lightning)" or other such combination of multiple resistances from buffs they casted on themself, the specific examples right now eludes me and I'm on lunch break at work, but I'm 100% sure of this.
..

&

Please read the spell in question, in the case of Energy Immunity you have a case of specific overrides general as the Energy Immunity spell itself tells you the spell stacks with itself as long as you choose a different energy type to be immune to each time. Therefore, it is a horrible example to be using in this argument because either way Energy Immunity spell gives permission for for how and when it stacks inside the spell itself.

"any other two such spells" != same spell
It doesn't give you the permission to stack with itself. No indicator for that, sorry.

@ciopo If you could find those mentioned examples, it would could be helpful and I would appreciate it. Otherwise it didn't happen ;)


How does it NOT? It says the same spell cast more than once can apply varying effects!
Reread the post. The problem is not that. The sentence only allows for the "application of varying effects", not more, not less.
I repeat:

It doesn't tell you what happens to these "effects".
It doesn't tell you if these effects are active or not. Which means that you aren't given the permission to stack their effects yet.

These thing are explained later after an example is given. Example and Exception are keywords and are not interchangeable as you like in 3.5. We have rules to suppress the common sense on this subject. If "exception" ain't mentioned in the rule text it is not and exception. If it says "example" it is a general example and not an exception.


Your logic is ok but your missing the most important step and therefore coming to an incorrect conclusion
4. Read the spell/feat/effect/class feature/etc.
This is the most important step in the whole process as quite often the thing in question has alternate rules inside of itself that change the conclusion you would otherwise make...
The 3 steps in my post are meant to showcase how "normally" rules are communicated anywhere in real life. Assuming text format. If you didn't noticed this so far, look anywhere where you have rules and they follow the same logic. Sole exception for this are simple global rules, like don't murder/steal where no context is needed to understand the circumstances where it counts and where not, cause they are global rules.


When there is no conflict, they are all still in effect, just like before. Multiple castings of energy resistance don’t stack for the same energy type, but would not conflict to have all working if they’re different types, and so they all work. There is no “trumping” of previous ones because there is no conflict. Same for multiple applications of Animal Affinity is applied to different stats.
There doesn't need to be a conflict. Let me show you where your thought process is flawed:
1. You may not use Common Sense to stack things in 3.5. This is because we have specific rules for stacking.
2. You need to find a rule that allows for the scenario you mentioned that allows for stacking "(active!) effects".
Now show me the rule where it says that you may stack em. So far all attempts have been falsepostives


The trumping is due to having the same effect that provides the same bonus. The baseline rule is that bonuses from the same spell don't stack. Animal affinity is actually a great example of this. It costs 3 pp to cast and 5 for every other bonus you get. Why bother having an increased cost to augment when you could simply cast it multiple times for the same effect up to 12 pp cheaper. The power doesn't stack with itself, but you can increase the benefit effect by spending pp.
Pls stop calling it a bonus. It is not. A bonus in 3.5 a modifier to a dice roll. source: The Basics (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm)
It doesn't stack, because we have 0 rules for it to stack. That simple.

[sreservoir]

Pls stop calling it a bonus. It is not. A bonus in 3.5 a modifier to a dice roll. source: The Basics (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm)

Pls stop calling it stacking. It is not. Stacking in 3.5 modifiers to a given check or roll. source: The Basics (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm)

[Gruftzwerg]

Pls stop calling it stacking. It is not. Stacking in 3.5 modifiers to a given check or roll. source: The Basics (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm)

Congrats, you seem to get it. The 100% rule correct term would have been, the beneficial effects don't add up and interfere with each other.

It's sometimes easier said than done, when you try to avoid the wrong keywords in 3.5 .. ^^

[newguydude1]

W.r.t. the OP, combat reflexes can potentially provide a good source of additional damage in a number of circumstances. It tends to be more impressive at lower levels, but even at a high level bonus attacks with your most damaging weapon are good.

im gonna pass on heroics. i play a wizard who doesnt adds spells to his spellbook outside of leveling, and seems like heroics isnt worth it after you get bite of the weretiger so im a use that spell known slot for something else.

[JNAProductions]

im gonna pass on heroics. i play a wizard who doesnt adds spells to his spellbook outside of leveling, and seems like heroics isnt worth it after you get bite of the weretiger so im a use that spell known slot for something else.

Do you not buff your friends? If you've got a martial or even a gish in the party, I'm sure they'd love to get Heroics cast on them.

[newguydude1]

Do you not buff your friends? If you've got a martial or even a gish in the party, I'm sure they'd love to get Heroics cast on them.

i buff my minion not my friends. im a beatstick not a bfc guy. i make that clear on day 1.

i stay in a box 24/7. so combat casting is a no on the account of i dont have line of effect to anything, and neither does anything to me. not gonna die to a surprise stealth assassin shooting poison arrows.

wizards have such **** spell per day limit i dont have enough slots to even have an extended 10min/level buff up all day. two persistent spells, tertiary spells that buff/enable those two like polymorphing into a symbiote or spell enhancer and adept spirit to make my spells harder to dispel, a few hour/level buffs like magic weapon and greater mage armor, summon component because i dont use wealth not even a spell component pouch, and a few extended girallons blessing so i can have it up all day.

the only spell i cast on my friends is superior resistance and only if i have the spell slot to spare which isnt until like level 14+.

[Aracor]

Reread the post. The problem is not that. The sentence only allows for the "application of varying effects", not more, not less.
I repeat:

It doesn't tell you what happens to these "effects".
It doesn't tell you if these effects are active or not. Which means that you aren't given the permission to stack their effects yet.
Actually, it does. Let's take it from the top again.

We start with the most general rule. At the bottom of page 171:

Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient. Except in special cases, a spell does not affect the way another spell operates. Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, the spell description explains that effect. Several other general rules apply when spells or magical effects operate in the same place:
Now we've got a general rule. General rule is that things work as described.
Energy Immunity is described thus: Choose an element. The recipient is immune to the element for 24 hours.

Now we've got a special list of exceptions.
I think we can agree that Stacking Effects, Different Bonus Names, Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths, and One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant don't apply here.

So we're left with Same Effect with Differing Results.

Is "Immunity to acid" a different result than "Immunity to fire"? (I actually want you to answer this specific question, please).

And here's the rule again. "The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. For example, a series of polymorph spells might turn a creature into a mouse, a lion, and then a snail. In this case, the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts."

How do we view that first sentence? Oh, easy! We go back to the general rule that says spells do what they say they do. So in the case of Heroics, it grants a feat from the fighter bonus feat list for the duration of the spell. If I cast heroics again, what does it do? Oh, well, it grants a feat from the fighter bonus feat list for the duration of the spell. The general rule doesn't say that casting a spell a second time invalidates the first casting. If I change the order of the wording in the first sentence, it doesn't change the meaning. So let's try that: "If the same spell is applied to the same recipient more than once, that spell can produce varying effects" (or as this exception is actually titled, same effect producing differing results). The same effect (in this case spell) can produce different results. Because the general rule says that spells do what they say they do.

The example that it uses is by virtue of the specific spells chosen why the effects of the others are irrelevant. Because a recipient can have one physical form at a time.

Please clarify why or how immunity to fire makes the effect of immunity to acid irrelevant? I suspect Angels would disagree with you, since they have immunity to both Acid and Cold. Both can easily be relevant depending on what kind of attack they're suffering from.

[Melcar]

im gonna pass on heroics. i play a wizard who doesnt adds spells to his spellbook outside of leveling, and seems like heroics isnt worth it after you get bite of the weretiger so im a use that spell known slot for something else.

Why would you not add spells outside leveling?

[Darg]

Now we've got a general rule. General rule is that things work as described.
Energy Immunity is described thus: Choose an element. The recipient is immune to the element for 24 hours.

I think a lot of people are ignoring the more specific case that comes next:


Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on
attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually
do not stack with themselves.

Feats are an attribute. Therefore heroics does not stack with itself. The same effect with differing results rule is explaining what happens in the case where the result is different when you cast the same spell.

[JNAProductions]

I think a lot of people are ignoring the more specific case that comes next:

Feats are an attribute. Therefore heroics does not stack with itself. The same effect with differing results rule is explaining what happens in the case where the result is different when you cast the same spell.


Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on
attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually
do not stack with themselves.

Is a feat a bonus or penalty to an attack roll, damage roll, saving throw, or other attribute?

[Aracor]

I think a lot of people are ignoring the more specific case that comes next:



Feats are an attribute. Therefore heroics does not stack with itself. The same effect with differing results rule is explaining what happens in the case where the result is different when you cast the same spell.
Please cite where feats are defined as an attribute, then. What page?

[newguydude1]

Why would you not add spells outside leveling?

cause it requires a dm to give you a wizard who has the spells you want in every campaign you play in.

[JNAProductions]

cause it requires a dm to give you a wizard who has the spells you want in every campaign you play in.

Can you not buy spells? It's not too dissimilar from buying magic items.

[Melcar]

cause it requires a dm to give you a wizard who has the spells you want in every campaign you play in.

Well yes and no. The DM does not have to give you the spells you want, you can find them in treasure, buy them at mage fairs, in magic shops, or get them through some of the mage guilds around, where mages often share spells - even churches of gods of magic often provide spells too. It would be very uncommon, and basically against (as in oposite) of the rules to not give your players any magic or spells outside class leves. The whole schtick of being a wizard is that a wizard can know - as in add to his list of known spells any and all wizard spells, by writing them into his spellbook. Why would your DM not allow this?



Can you not buy spells? It's not too dissimilar from buying magic items.

My thought exactly... either someone playing a really weird game, where the items - including scrolls - listed in DMG, or any other book, is unavailable, or that person has zero grasp of the rules, and how they support characters...

Whatever floats one's boat i guess! I am however very curious to why the character is being played like that!?

[newguydude1]

Can you not buy spells? It's not too dissimilar from buying magic items.

hes not the type to give you regular access to magic shops. you either use what you find and once in a while if you get lucky you have access to markets but even then they dont have everything. spells are usually limited to what the region would have, so like underdark magic shop only has underdark spells. or a small village would have core spells + the wizard shopkeep's personal spells, their levels are no higher than what the shopkeep can cast.

[Segev]

There doesn't need to be a conflict. Let me show you where your thought process is flawed:
1. You may not use Common Sense to stack things in 3.5. This is because we have specific rules for stacking.
2. You need to find a rule that allows for the scenario you mentioned that allows for stacking "(active!) effects".
Now show me the rule where it says that you may stack em. So far all attempts have been falsepostives

There is no rule that forbids it, first of all. This is important, because heroics itself states that, when you cast it, your target gains a fighter bonus feat of your choosing. Since there is nothing that says that heroics cannot give a second, different fighter bonus feat upon a second casting, we default to heroics declaring that it can give a fighter bonus feat.

What we do have are rules forbidding stacking of like bonuses. This isn't a bonus, so those do not apply.
We also have rules stating what happens in the case of stacking effects which would come into conflict with each other (such as polymorph and polymorph into two different creatures): the most recent one trumps, but does not dispel nor end the ones underlying it.

We have a rule that states that spells which can apply distinct effects can be active multiple times.

We have no rule that states that a spell active multiple times, each instance giving a different effect, has only one of those effects active. We only have (as previously stated) a rule that explains how to handle conflicts between instances of the spell's effects. When there is no conflict to resolve, we default to the permission to have them active, granted both by this rule and by the spell itself having nothing stating you can't have it active multiple times.

[Darg]

Is a feat a bonus or penalty to an attack roll, damage roll, saving throw, or other attribute?

It's attribute of your character. Just like your skills, type, hp, abilities, physical features.


Please cite where feats are defined as an attribute, then. What page?

Please cite where attribute is defined by WotC. If you can't I can point you to a dictionary that can explain the meaning.


There is no rule that forbids it, first of all. This is important, because heroics itself states that, when you cast it, your target gains a fighter bonus feat of your choosing. Since there is nothing that says that heroics cannot give a second, different fighter bonus feat upon a second casting, we default to heroics declaring that it can give a fighter bonus feat.

What we do have are rules forbidding stacking of like bonuses. This isn't a bonus, so those do not apply.
We also have rules stating what happens in the case of stacking effects which would come into conflict with each other (such as polymorph and polymorph into two different creatures): the most recent one trumps, but does not dispel nor end the ones underlying it.

We have a rule that states that spells which can apply distinct effects can be active multiple times.

We have no rule that states that a spell active multiple times, each instance giving a different effect, has only one of those effects active. We only have (as previously stated) a rule that explains how to handle conflicts between instances of the spell's effects. When there is no conflict to resolve, we default to the permission to have them active, granted both by this rule and by the spell itself having nothing stating you can't have it active multiple times.

Why wouldn't it be a bonus? Because it's untyped? WotC refers to many things as a bonus that aren't simple numeric statistics of your character. Such as being a bonus feat. Feats are an attribute of your character. So why wouldn't it be covered by the stacking rules?

As the same effect with differing results rule implies, polymorph has a single effect with different results. Multiple castings are separate instances of the same effect. The only spell that I can think of off the top of my head that has multiple separate effects is Bestow Curse as the spell calls them different effects. Does the third effect of bestow curse stack with itself? It doesn't conflict with itself; so even though it is a penalty to the character's attribute to act on their turn, stacking is allowed under the rules?

[Segev]

Why wouldn't it be a bonus? Because it's untyped? WotC refers to many things as a bonus that aren't simple numeric statistics of your character. Feats are an attribute of your character. So why wouldn't it be covered by the stacking rules?Even by that argument, untyped bonuses stack. (Granted, they do not stack if they're from the same source, so you'd have a case there if the context about stacking bonuses was not clearly unrelated to this.)

But that's a specious argument; the rules about stacking bonuses very clearly, from context, refer to numeric bonuses, not "bonus feats" or any other use of the term in 3.


As the same effect with differing results rule implies, polymorph has a single effect with different results. Multiple castings are separate instances of the same effect.The rule says they all apply, then goes on to explain how to resolve it when all applying creates a conflict, using polymorph as an example. It does not say, "When multiple different effects from the same source are applied, only one of them is in effect." It says that the last one "trumps."

As I said before, when there's no conflict, there is nothing to trump. Therefore, with no conflict, all nonconflicting effects are in play at once, per the rule that says you can have multiple different effects from the same source applied multiple times.


The only spell that I can think of off the top of my head that has multiple separate effects is Bestow Curse as the spell calls them different effects. Does the third effect of bestow curse stack with itself? It doesn't conflict with itself; so even though it is a penalty to the character's attribute to act on their turn, stacking is allowed under the rules?The third effect is a 50% chance to act randomly each round. It is an identical effect, if you apply it twice, so it doesn't stack but overlaps, and you'd have to remove both instances before he was uncursed. However, it still has a net effect of only a 50% chance of acting randomly each round.

If you cast bestow curse three times, and apply a -6 penalty to an ability score, a -4 penalty on attack rolls, saves, ability checks, and skill checks, and a 50% chance of acting randomly each round, all three would be in effect (assuming he failed all relevant saves, etc.). You could even apply the first effect six times, once to each ability score.

[ciopo]

"any other two such spells" != same spell
It doesn't give you the permission to stack with itself. No indicator for that, sorry.

@ciopo If you could find those mentioned examples, it would could be helpful and I would appreciate it. Otherwise it didn't happen ;)
. Well, I feel like nitpicking here :D so I'm going to say that any other two spell, very good. Resist energy is an "other spell" that is not energy immunity, so I can squint at it and while energy immunity does not outright say it stack with itself, it does make resist energy stack with itself so long that resist energy is applied to different energies. Casting resist energy twice is casting two spells other than energy immunity after all :D, semantic fun (I see what you meant)(my reading of "two other" was "two casting" but I see what you mean)

The only example that comes to mind right from the top of my head is some wizard dude from the third adventure in the war of the burning sky , quote "Expecting something might go wrong,
Giorgio has already cast resist energy on himself
twice, granting electricity and fire resistance 20" , page 107 if you have the big deluxe all in one but fair's fair that's third party

The polymorph example doesn't actually make much sense to me, in kinda every other spell stacking rules the most potent effect is the one that overrules the others, why wouldn't polymorph be the same, with the highest caster level being the one that supress all others?

What other spells are there that can have multiple effects, the resist/protect line, bestow curse , protection from alignments are actually different spells which lends credence to the con argument, I'm drawing a blank on other such cases.
A counter counter argument is how they distilled 6 spells in one "ehnance ability" in 5e, clearly you could buff both strength and dexterity in 3.5, but suddenly in 5e we can't anymore?

[Aracor]

Other examples of singular spells that have multiple effects: Enhance Wild Shape, Ruin Delver's Fortune, Create Magic Tattoo, Holy Star, potentially the Shadow Conjuration line, Limited Wish. I'm sure there are more, but I'm tired of digging.

[liquidformat]

"any other two such spells" != same spell
It doesn't give you the permission to stack with itself. No indicator for that, sorry.
Are you kidding me have you ever even read the spell? It clearly gives you permission to cast the spell multiple times and each time choose a different energy to be immune to.


The effect of this spell does not stack with similar effects, such as resist energy and protection from energy, that protect against the same energy type. If a character is warded with energy immunity (fire) and is also receiving resistance to fire from one or more of the other spells, the energy immunity makes the other spells irrelevant. However, it is possible to be simultaneously under the effect of energy immunity (fire) and resist energy (electricity), or any other two such spells that protect against different types of energy.


The 3 steps in my post are meant to showcase how "normally" rules are communicated anywhere in real life. Assuming text format. If you didn't noticed this so far, look anywhere where you have rules and they follow the same logic. Sole exception for this are simple global rules, like don't murder/steal where no context is needed to understand the circumstances where it counts and where not, cause they are global rules.

I don't care where you pulled your three step method out of because it is flawed and doesn't work without a fourth step, if it did you wouldn't be arguing that energy immunity can't be casted multiple times and stay in affect...

[newguydude1]

Are you kidding me have you ever even read the spell? It clearly gives you permission to cast the spell multiple times and each time choose a different energy to be immune to.




I don't care where you pulled your three step method out of because it is flawed and doesn't work without a fourth step, if it did you wouldn't be arguing that energy immunity can't be casted multiple times and stay in affect...

doesnt say that.




A sense of security fills you as you complete the spell. As you touch the intended target of the spell, the feeling lingers for a moment before fading.

This abjuration grants a creature and its equipment complete immunity to damage from one of the five energy types—acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic. Energy immunity absorbs only hit point damage, so the recipient could still suffer side effects such as drowning in acid, being deafened by a sonic attack, or becoming immobilized in ice (and thus helpless).

Energy immunity overlaps protection from energy and resist energy. As long as energy immunity is in effect, the other spells absorb no damage.

[Aracor]

Please cite where attribute is defined by WotC. If you can't I can point you to a dictionary that can explain the meaning.
Well, if I look in the glossary under damage, it says that damage points are deducted by whatever character attribute has been harmed.

In that case, unless you can find something that inflicts feat damage, I think we'll need to conclude that feats aren't an attribute.

[Gruftzwerg]

Actually, it does. Let's take it from the top again.

We start with the most general rule. At the bottom of page 171:

Now we've got a general rule. General rule is that things work as described.
Energy Immunity is described thus: Choose an element. The recipient is immune to the element for 24 hours.
checked :)


Now we've got a special list of exceptions.
I think we can agree that Stacking Effects, Different Bonus Names, Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths, and One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant don't apply here.

So we're left with Same Effect with Differing Results.
You forgot Multiple Mental Control Effects, but that also doen't apply here. But lets still make a lil break here. Page 172 of the PHB gives you 6 different Scenarios/circumstances/exceptions here. Each with a separate name and it's own paragraph.
What you are trying is, to split "Same Effect with Differing Results" into 2 separate exception that aren't handled the same. You ignore that the first sentence doesn't tell you to do anything. It just tells you that there might be situations where something was the target of multiple casts of the same effect with differing results. The sentence explains when you apply this rule. It doesn't tell you how to resolve it, that comes later with an example and than it showcases how this (paragraph section) is to be handled.

Text format/layout is there for a purpose. You totally ignore it, by splitting "Same Effect with Differing Results" into two inconstant parts that you are demanding to be ruled separately. Sorry but this so wrong on so many levels..


Is "Immunity to acid" a different result than "Immunity to fire"? (I actually want you to answer this specific question, please).

And here's the rule again. "The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. For example, a series of polymorph spells might turn a creature into a mouse, a lion, and then a snail. In this case, the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts."
which in chase of Heroics/Energy Immunity means, that you lost access to the feats/immunities from previous casts.. They are not removed, and the effects are still on you. But their effects have become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts. Hey we worked it out and we have no contradiction to the first sentence. Do you get it now, why "stacking"/multiple Heroics/Energy Immunity doesn't work out?



The example that it uses is by virtue of the specific spells chosen why the effects of the others are irrelevant. Because a recipient can have one physical form at a time.
while your thoughts are correct for the "specific" polymorph spell, it doesn't has anything to do with the example. The rules name is "Same Effect with Differing Results" and not "Same Effect with interfering results". It's one rule, not 2 separate rules..


Please clarify why or how immunity to fire makes the effect of immunity to acid irrelevant? I suspect Angels would disagree with you, since they have immunity to both Acid and Cold. Both can easily be relevant depending on what kind of attack they're suffering from.
Where did I say that? But I'll play along the question and will answer your dilemma..
The immunities from Angels and most other creatures don't come from spells being cast. That simple. Remember..


Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects
Just because Effects are mentioned all over the page doesn't change the fact that we are still talking about spells only!

____________________


Feats are an attribute. Therefore heroics does not stack with itself. The same effect with differing results rule is explaining what happens in the case where the result is different when you cast the same spell.
Thx for finding the right words =) I thing we found the right terminology to categorize what Heroics is giving us^^
Attributes!

_________________________



Are you kidding me have you ever even read the spell? It clearly gives you permission to cast the spell multiple times and each time choose a different energy to be immune to.

I don't care where you pulled your three step method out of because it is flawed and doesn't work without a fourth step, if it did you wouldn't be arguing that energy immunity can't be casted multiple times and stay in affect...

Maybe you should try to calm down and try to read more carefully?
I already went overboard and googled all 4 of the 3.0/3.5 versions of the spell just to make sure I am not missing anything before posting on page 1 I guess. But you are trying to imply things that are not in the text. How about quoting the the passage where you think you have been given the permission in the Energy Immunity spell description to stack it? Than we can talk.

And the "method" I showcased is for explaining and presenting rules to others. How the book did it for us. The book doesn't need a 4th point where it needs to read itself, nor does someone explaining a rule to somebody else ..lol... do you actually read stuff and try to comprehend it before posting?

calm down and read more carefully please.

________________________


Well, if I look in the glossary under damage, it says that damage points are deducted by whatever character attribute has been harmed.

In that case, unless you can find something that inflicts feat damage, I think we'll need to conclude that feats aren't an attribute

Where does it say that damage may work on all kinds of attributes?
Or that all kinds of attributes have to be damageable?
Where?

Just the usage of the word "attribute" (even) in the middle of (rule) text, doesn't define it automatically.
If you declare something, you start normally by naming it first and than talk about it. You don't declare something just by mentioning it in the middle of a non related sentence. If rules and laws would work that way, we would never end discussions, because of lacking enough structure and precision within the rules/laws..
But thanks god, we have found solutions to express rules in better ways. Like "Glossaries (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary)" for example. And you'll find out that you won't find a definition for Attribute there.

And no, it works the other way around:
If you can't present a WotC 3.5 specific definition for "Attribute", the general rule is to fall back to regular English dictionary definition. And that covers that easily up.

You seem to be missing the very basics of how to read and interpret 3.5 rules if you don't even get how definitions work in general here...

[Segev]

You ignore that the first sentence doesn't tell you to do anything. It just tells you that there might be situations where something was the target of multiple casts of the same effect with differing results.

One singular point here: it doesn't have to tell you to do anything. It blatantly says that you can have multiple castings of the same spell with different effects. Period. Full stop.

It then goes on to give the explanation of how to handle this when it creates a conflict, using polymorph as an example. Polymorph, cast multiple times to transform the target into different forms, obviously cannot have multiple forms assumed at once, which creates a conflict with the rule established in the prior sentence (which says that you can have multiple effects from the same spell cast multiple times for different effects). So this rule now tells us how to resolve it: the most recently-cast one trumps the others, which remain active "underneath" the current one, in case it's ever relevant (such as the newer one having a shorter duration, or being dispelled, or the like).

The later example of shapechange actually shows us that the first sentence is complete by itself for situations where there is no conflict. Where there is no conflict, you can have multiple different effects from multiple castings of the same spell that is capable of granting different effects with each casting. The shapechange followed by polymorph demonstrates that both spells are still in effect. Polymorph trumps the currently-active shape of shapechange, but it doesn't negate the parts of shapechange that are not in conflict with it. In particular, the ability granted by shapechange to alter your form at will, which then lets you alter the form polymorph put you in.

Thus, we see that what the later effect trumps is anything conflicting with having its effect applied, not the entire previous effect. This makes sense, since you can't have "being wet" trump "wearing a blue shirt," as they're not in conflict. However, "being wet" would trump "being dry" if you got splashed with water after having been dried off, because it's impossible to be both wet and dry.

Likewise, then, a spell which has multiple possible effects, cast multiple times for a different effect each time, has every effect in place as long as none of them conflict. Heroics can grant different fighter bonus feats each time it is cast, and there is nothing creating an inherent conflict in having multiple fighter bonus feats. Therefore, you can be under the effect of multiple heroics spells and gain multiple fighter bonus feats from them as long as each one is a different fighter bonus feat.

[Aracor]

One singular point here: it doesn't have to tell you to do anything. It blatantly says that you can have multiple castings of the same spell with different effects. Period. Full stop.

It then goes on to give the explanation of how to handle this when it creates a conflict, using polymorph as an example. Polymorph, cast multiple times to transform the target into different forms, obviously cannot have multiple forms assumed at once, which creates a conflict with the rule established in the prior sentence (which says that you can have multiple effects from the same spell cast multiple times for different effects). So this rule now tells us how to resolve it: the most recently-cast one trumps the others, which remain active "underneath" the current one, in case it's ever relevant (such as the newer one having a shorter duration, or being dispelled, or the like).

The later example of shapechange actually shows us that the first sentence is complete by itself for situations where there is no conflict. Where there is no conflict, you can have multiple different effects from multiple castings of the same spell that is capable of granting different effects with each casting. The shapechange followed by polymorph demonstrates that both spells are still in effect. Polymorph trumps the currently-active shape of shapechange, but it doesn't negate the parts of shapechange that are not in conflict with it. In particular, the ability granted by shapechange to alter your form at will, which then lets you alter the form polymorph put you in.

Thus, we see that what the later effect trumps is anything conflicting with having its effect applied, not the entire previous effect. This makes sense, since you can't have "being wet" trump "wearing a blue shirt," as they're not in conflict. However, "being wet" would trump "being dry" if you got splashed with water after having been dried off, because it's impossible to be both wet and dry.

Likewise, then, a spell which has multiple possible effects, cast multiple times for a different effect each time, has every effect in place as long as none of them conflict. Heroics can grant different fighter bonus feats each time it is cast, and there is nothing creating an inherent conflict in having multiple fighter bonus feats. Therefore, you can be under the effect of multiple heroics spells and gain multiple fighter bonus feats from them as long as each one is a different fighter bonus feat.

Pretty much this. Because (as I pointed out earlier) the default answer at the very beginning of the section is that spells do what they say they do, no matter how many other spells are operating on the same recipient.

This means that the default answer unless there IS some kind of conflict is that spells do what they say they do. There is nothing inherently conflicting about having two different feats, so Heroics can do that.

[Darg]

One singular point here: it doesn't have to tell you to do anything. It blatantly says that you can have multiple castings of the same spell with different effects. Period. Full stop.

Actually it says "same effect with differing results." The same spell would have the same effect, only with a different outcome. It's one effect. Multiple castings create multiple instances of the same effect. The only exception to this off the top of my head is Bestow Curse as it specifically states that it produces different effects . Fundamentally the angle in which you are trying to persuade us is skewed.


It then goes on to give the explanation of how to handle this when it creates a conflict, using polymorph as an example. Polymorph, cast multiple times to transform the target into different forms, obviously cannot have multiple forms assumed at once, which creates a conflict with the rule established in the prior sentence (which says that you can have multiple effects from the same spell cast multiple times for different effects). So this rule now tells us how to resolve it: the most recently-cast one trumps the others, which remain active "underneath" the current one, in case it's ever relevant (such as the newer one having a shorter duration, or being dispelled, or the like).

Heroics gives a bonus feat. WotC doesn't define what an attribute is so the dictionary definition should apply. That means any spell that gives a bonus or penalty does not usually stack with itself (with bestow curse as an example of an exception). If it could, Girallon's Blessing would stack with itself to create an abominable shredder. That is way too strong for a level 3 spell. Polymorph is the same way. You will notice that the rules don't mention anything about conflicts being the reason that the spells make the previous one irrelevant as that is actually the title of the rule segment, same effect with differing results.


The later example of shapechange actually shows us that the first sentence is complete by itself for situations where there is no conflict. Where there is no conflict, you can have multiple different effects from multiple castings of the same spell that is capable of granting different effects with each casting. The shapechange followed by polymorph demonstrates that both spells are still in effect. Polymorph trumps the currently-active shape of shapechange, but it doesn't negate the parts of shapechange that are not in conflict with it. In particular, the ability granted by shapechange to alter your form at will, which then lets you alter the form polymorph put you in.

This is under a different rule, one effect makes another irrelevant. It tells you how different spells interact with each other. See the difference? You can't use one to quantify the other because they are entirely different.


Thus, we see that what the later effect trumps is anything conflicting with having its effect applied, not the entire previous effect. This makes sense, since you can't have "being wet" trump "wearing a blue shirt," as they're not in conflict. However, "being wet" would trump "being dry" if you got splashed with water after having been dried off, because it's impossible to be both wet and dry.

Likewise, then, a spell which has multiple possible effects, cast multiple times for a different effect each time, has every effect in place as long as none of them conflict. Heroics can grant different fighter bonus feats each time it is cast, and there is nothing creating an inherent conflict in having multiple fighter bonus feats. Therefore, you can be under the effect of multiple heroics spells and gain multiple fighter bonus feats from them as long as each one is a different fighter bonus feat.

The conflict comes from the default we have for spells stacking with each other. I argue that any bonus or penalty which alters a character attribute is subject to not stacking. You have argued that feats aren't a numerical attribute and therefore isn't subject to the stacking rules. I argue that attributes also apply to other aspects of your character such as everything under level advancement pg 58-9 of the PHB and any physical, natural, or special attack/quality a creature can possess. Basically anything in the stat block of a creature is an attribute of that creature.

[JNAProductions]

Girallon's Blessing gives the exact same bonus each time.

Energy Immunity or Heroics give different bonuses.

Are you really arguing that "Immunity to Fire" and "Immunity to Lightning" are the same effect?

[newguydude1]

Girallon's Blessing gives the exact same bonus each time.

Energy Immunity or Heroics give different bonuses.

Are you really arguing that "Immunity to Fire" and "Immunity to Lightning" are the same effect?

no more different than polymorphing into a lion vs polymorphing into a fish.

i guess its upto dm to say whether immunity to energy is the same effect with variance, or entirely different effects.

[JNAProductions]

no more different than polymorphing into a lion vs polymorphing into a fish.

i guess its upto dm to say whether immunity to energy is the same effect with variance, or entirely different effects.

Turning into a lion is overwritten by turning into a fish, because the two effects are directly in conflict.

What part of "Immunity to Fire" conflicts with "Immunity to Lightning"?

[Darg]

That is exactly what the rules state. I'm not just making it up. It is the same effect with differing results and falls under such a heading.

[Aracor]

no more different than polymorphing into a lion vs polymorphing into a fish.

i guess its upto dm to say whether immunity to energy is the same effect with variance, or entirely different effects.

Wait, so you're arguing that being immune to fire and then becoming immune to electricity is exactly the same as being polymorphed into a lion and then polymorphed into a fish?

[Darg]

Wait, so you're arguing that being immune to fire and then becoming immune to electricity is exactly the same as being polymorphed into a lion and then polymorphed into a fish?

That's what the rules state

[Aracor]

That is exactly what the rules state. I'm not just making it up. It is the same effect with differing results and falls under such a heading.

And it says that's valid! It specifically says that the same spell can produce varying effects when applied more than once.

[Segev]

I think we've gotten to a point where we're not going to persuade people on the other side.

The two arguments right now are:

The rules state that you can have the same spell grant different effects.
If there's conflict between these effects, the most recent one trumps.
If it's conflicting mental effects, casters roll opposed charisma checks to see which one wins.
The rules state that you can have the same spell grant different effects, and the most recent effect always overwrites the previous ones (regardless of whether there's conflict).
If the effects are mental, both remain in effect, but if they conflict, the caster's roll opposed charisma checks to see which one wins.

(If anybody feels I have unfairly represented their side, please correct me; I am just attempting to summarize, here.)

I believe that anybody who is as-yet undecided should consider these two arguments and determine what works best for their games.

[newguydude1]

And it says that's valid! It specifically says that the same spell can produce varying effects when applied more than once.

why do you keep ignoring the rest of the paragraph? if your going to cut parts that directly say your wrong out and then insist your right then this discussion is over.

here ill do the same. bulls strength stacks with itself so you can have +100 str.

An enhancement bonus represents an increase in the sturdiness and/or effectiveness of armor or natural armor, or the effectiveness of a weapon, or a general bonus to an ability score. Multiple enhancement bonuses on the same object (in the case of armor and weapons), creature (in the case of natural armor), or ability score do not stack. Only the highest enhancement bonus applies. Since enhancement bonuses to armor or natural armor effectively increase the armor or natural armor's bonus to AC, they don't apply against touch attacks.

and it says thats valid!

here ill repeat the part you keep ignoring to say your right

None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

[Aracor]

why do you keep ignoring the rest of the paragraph? if your going to cut parts that directly say your wrong out and then insist your right then this discussion is over.

here ill do the same. bulls strength stacks with itself so you can have +100 str.


and it says thats valid!

here ill repeat the part you keep ignoring to say your right

The difference is that you're deleting part of the rule. I'm removing the example.

[newguydude1]

Wait, so you're arguing that being immune to fire and then becoming immune to electricity is exactly the same as being polymorphed into a lion and then polymorphed into a fish?

i rescind what said earlier. lets go through the rules step by step one last time.


Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once


You place a curse on the subject. Choose one of the following three effects.

definition of varying

adjective
adjective: varying

to cause to be different from something else:

is bestow curse a spell that produce varying effects? yes? no?
answer is yes. the end. period. end of story.

so then what happens when you cast bestow curse several times on a subject?

None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

only the last spell stays in effect. the end. period. end of story.

what the is the confusion that you people have about this direct unambiguous raw.

same spell varying effect? last one only.
bestow curse with 3 effects? last one only.
heroics with fighter bonus amount of effects? last one only.

open shut. cut and dry. stop rule lawyering to get what you want. like aracor here who is trying his absolutely best to say "None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts." is not a rule text but something he can just ignore.

ill repeat one last time.
bestow curse? spell with varying effects.
varying effects? only last one is active.
full stop. the end.

[gogogome]

The difference is that you're deleting part of the rule. I'm removing the example.

No. That's you. Your deleting part of the rule.

This is the d20srd version. This one doesn't have an example.
https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm

The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.
Notice how the rule text your trying to call an example and remove is still here.

[Segev]

I refer people back to my last post.

I don't think either side is going to convince the other that their reading is correct. Getting angry about it or accusing people of disingenuous argumentation is definitely not going to make you more persuasive.

[magicalmagicman]

The difference is that you're deleting part of the rule. I'm removing the example.

So... let me get this straight. In your view this is the rule text

Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. For example, a series of polymorph spells might turn a creature into a mouse, a lion, and then a snail. In this case, the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

Ok so we're left with this
"The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. "

So... what is it saying? There are some spells that can produce varying effects. Ok. So what's the consequence of such a case? We're talking about stacking rules right? Some spells can produce varying effects. So what? What do we do with these spells?

[Aracor]

No. That's you. Your deleting part of the rule.

This is the d20srd version. This one doesn't have an example.
https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm

Notice how the rule text your trying to call an example and remove is still here.

First of all, that's not the primary source. Second of all, it also says USUALLY. Because it says usually, that means there MUST be circumstances in which they do all stack and don't override. Explain to me under what circumstances they wouldn't override based on the rules as listed.

[Aracor]

So... let me get this straight. In your view this is the rule text


Ok so we're left with this
"The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. "

So... what is it saying? There are some spells that can produce varying effects. Ok. So what's the consequence of such a case? We're talking about stacking rules right? Some spells can produce varying effects. So what? What do we do with these spells?

I've explained this earlier, but I'll reiterate. We go back to the general rules. The very first sentence in the section about stacking effects:

Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient. Except in special cases, a spell does not affect the way another spell operates.

[newguydude1]

I refer people back to my last post.

I don't think either side is going to convince the other that their reading is correct. Getting angry about it or accusing people of disingenuous argumentation is definitely not going to make you more persuasive.

theres a difference between arguing what is an "effect"
and then theres ignoring everything in the spell text except the very first sentence.

the former may merit discussion but the latter is just a tantrum.

[magicalmagicman]

I've explained this earlier, but I'll reiterate. We go back to the general rules. The very first sentence in the section about stacking effects:

Ok, so according to you, the rules are saying.

"there are spells that produce varying effects".
And that's it. It just mentioned that just to waste our time. No additional instructions at all.

[Aracor]

theres a difference between arguing what is an "effect"
and then theres ignoring everything in the spell text except the very first sentence.

the former may merit discussion but the latter is just a tantrum.

Grammatically I've explained that everything after the first sentence is an example. I've also used real world examples to illustrate that an example is just that. One specific instance. By virtue of being an example, it cannot change the rule itself, it can only clarify it. In addition, an example is not all-encompassing and doesn't conform to every instance in which the rule applies.

I'll add my real-world example from earlier in the thread.

"All cooking ranges need to have a source of heat. For example, a range may need to be plugged into an electrical outlet."
That doesn't mean electricity is the only way for a range to have heat. There are also gas ranges, which don't need electricity to generate heat. It's also possible for a range to be powered by coal or wood fire.

[sreservoir]

As the same effect with differing results rule implies, polymorph has a single effect with different results. Multiple castings are separate instances of the same effect. The only spell that I can think of off the top of my head that has multiple separate effects is Bestow Curse as the spell calls them different effects.

Just to clarify, although the heading is "Same Effect with Differing Results", the final sentence of that heading actually says "None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts."

The fact that bestow curse specifically calls out distinct "effects" doesn't matter; it's the same spell. If you read that sentence as not constrained to the example, there's no actual wiggle room to say that it doesn't apply to multiple castings bestow curse choosing different "effects".

[magicalmagicman]

"All cooking ranges need to have a source of heat. For example, a range may need to be plugged into an electrical outlet."
That doesn't mean electricity is the only way for a range to have heat. There are also gas ranges, which don't need electricity to generate heat. It's also possible for a range to be powered by coal or wood fire.

By your own example the "example" ends with the sentence. Just like the "example" with polymorph ends when the sentence ends. The rest of the section is not an example.

Just to be clear, in your opinion, the rule text is just pointing out that there are spells that produce varying effects. Not giving out additional instructions, not addressing this specific case of stacking. But just pointing it out and giving meaningless useless irelevant polymorph example.

Is that right?

[Aracor]

Ok, so according to you, the rules are saying.

"there are spells that produce varying effects".
And that's it. It just mentioned that just to waste our time. No additional instructions at all.

Technically, no. You're skipping the actual title of the section. Same effect with differing results. So if you're hit by a supernatural ability that can inflict either the Shaken or the Sickened condition, and the creature using the ability gets to choose, they can choose one of them the first round and another the second round. If the duration of the effects is more than one round, it's possible for the target to be affected by both conditions at the same time from the same ability. They added this rule in there because otherwise someone might think that a single effect can only inflict one condition at a time.

The specific example that they're using is how it works when one of the effects is literally overriding another because in that particular circumstance, a recipient can only have a single form at any given time.

[magicalmagicman]

Technically, no. You're skipping the actual title of the section. Same effect with differing results. So if you're hit by a supernatural ability that can inflict either the Shaken or the Sickened condition, and the creature using the ability gets to choose, they can choose one of them the first round and another the second round. If the duration of the effects is more than one round, it's possible for the target to be affected by both conditions at the same time from the same ability. They added this rule in there because otherwise someone might think that a single effect can only inflict one condition at a time.

The specific example that they're using is how it works when one of the effects is literally overriding another because in that particular circumstance, a recipient can only have a single form at any given time.

So let me just fix the example you gave so its actually relevant.

"All cooking ranges need to have a source of heat. For example, a range may need to be plugged into an electrical outlet. Without a source of heat a cooking range will not function."
The example is just the bolded part. Notice how everything after the example is not part of the example itself.

"The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. For example, a series of polymorph spells might turn a creature into a mouse, a lion, and then a snail. In this case, the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts."

Likewise here, the "example" ends with the sentence that starts with "In this case". It directly tells you in this specific example this is how you resolve it. And that's it. Example is over. Grammatically speaking that is. So why are you saying otherwise?


Technically, no.
Technically, your just rule lawyering to remove the direct RAW that says your wrong.

[Aracor]

By your own example the "example" ends with the sentence. Just like the "example" with polymorph ends when the sentence ends. The rest of the section is not an example.

Just to be clear, in your opinion, the rule text is just pointing out that there are spells that produce varying effects. Not giving out additional instructions, not addressing this specific case of stacking. But just pointing it out and giving meaningless useless irelevant polymorph example.

Is that right?

More than that. The rule text is pointing out that there are spells that produce varying effects, and specifically allowing those varying effects to happen if the spell is cast upon the recipient multiple times.

The polymorph example is not meaningless, nor is it useless. But it's a specific example where by the virtue of HOW the polymorph series of spells work, they specifically override because a recipient can only have one form at any given time. But at the same time, the example is not all-encompassing and shouldn't be used as a solution for every single interaction of how spells that allow varying effects to work.

Personally, I do allow someone to be cursed with both a -6 to an attribute and -4 to all attack rolls, ability checks, skill checks, and saving throws. And they apply concurrently.

Every single DM that I've played under also allows Bestow Curse to work in the same way.

[Segev]

theres a difference between arguing what is an "effect"
and then theres ignoring everything in the spell text except the very first sentence.

the former may merit discussion but the latter is just a tantrum.

No. It is clear you are not correctly reiterating the point you term "a tantrum," which suggests you do not understand it.

The rule, which is necessary to state because other rules discuss the same spell with the same effect not stacking with itself, is simple: Some spells can apply multiple effects. This clarifies that they do not fall under the previously-discussed rule that says same spell's same effects don't stack.

Next, it gives an example where this is problematic because it would make no sense to both be transformed into a frog and a bird. The rule given to resolve this example says that the last one cast trumps the others.

The verb "trump" is important.

Having Power Attack isn't trumped by having Great Cleave. Saying "having Great Cleave trumps having Power Attack" doesn't even make sense, because the verb "to trump" requires there to be a conflict that needs a trump to resolve. If two things can exist simultaneously, one cannot trump the other.

Now, I understand that you don't agree with this argument. However, accusing people of "throwing tantrums" and otherwise getting angry in your argumentation is not going to change any minds. You're free to disagree. I encourage you to respect those who disagree with you, however, enough to accept that they are looking at the RAW just as much as you are. They just don't agree with your reading of it.


I refer people again back to two of my posts ago; I tried to give summaries of both arguments as fairly as I could, and I hope I didn't misrepresent the second one (as I personally think the first is the most correct). I don't think we gain anything from this argument, unless points that haven't already been made can be conjured up. We already seem to be at the "repeat the same arguments, but louder" stage, though.

[Aracor]

So let me just fix the example you gave so its actually relevant.

"All cooking ranges need to have a source of heat. For example, a range may need to be plugged into an electrical outlet. Without a source of heat a cooking range will not function."
The example is just the bolded part. Notice how everything after the example is not part of the example itself.

"The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. For example, a series of polymorph spells might turn a creature into a mouse, a lion, and then a snail. In this case, the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts."

Likewise here, the "example" ends with the sentence that starts with "In this case". It directly tells you in this specific example this is how you resolve it. And that's it. Example is over. Grammatically speaking that is. So why are you saying otherwise?


Technically, your just rule lawyering to remove the direct RAW that says your wrong.
Why do you assume that the "example" ends with the sentence that starts with "In this case"? The final sentence is still referencing "the series of spells" (which are also specifically called out in the example).

"The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. For example, a series of polymorph spells might turn a creature into a mouse, a lion, and then a snail. In this case, the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts."

[gogogome]

No. It is clear you are not correctly reiterating the point you term "a tantrum," which suggests you do not understand it.

The rule, which is necessary to state because other rules discuss the same spell with the same effect not stacking with itself, is simple: Some spells can apply multiple effects. This clarifies that they do not fall under the previously-discussed rule that says same spell's same effects don't stack.

Next, it gives an example where this is problematic because it would make no sense to both be transformed into a frog and a bird. The rule given to resolve this example says that the last one cast trumps the others.

The verb "trump" is important.

Having Power Attack isn't trumped by having Great Cleave. Saying "having Great Cleave trumps having Power Attack" doesn't even make sense, because the verb "to trump" requires there to be a conflict that needs a trump to resolve. If two things can exist simultaneously, one cannot trump the other.

Now, I understand that you don't agree with this argument. However, accusing people of "throwing tantrums" and otherwise getting angry in your argumentation is not going to change any minds. You're free to disagree. I encourage you to respect those who disagree with you, however, enough to accept that they are looking at the RAW just as much as you are. They just don't agree with your reading of it.


I refer people again back to two of my posts ago; I tried to give summaries of both arguments as fairly as I could, and I hope I didn't misrepresent the second one (as I personally think the first is the most correct). I don't think we gain anything from this argument, unless points that haven't already been made can be conjured up. We already seem to be at the "repeat the same arguments, but louder" stage, though.

Thats not what he said. He's not talking about your summary at all. Not even close.
Right now Aracor is saying
1. "None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts. " is part of the polymorph example
2. Examples are not rule text. so you have to remove it all.
3. The section we are talking about is just pointing out that there are spells that produce varying effects. It doesn't tell you to do anything at all. It's just pointing out there are spells that produce varying effects with no instructions at all.
4. Technically its actually doing something more because we can apply general rules here.
And now were talking about grammar. Whether the sentence "None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts." is part of the example or not.

What part of this discussion is related to the summary you gave?
And could you give us your opinion whether Aracors "logic" is sound?

[magicalmagicman]

Why do you assume that the "example" ends with the sentence that starts with "In this case"? The final sentence is still referencing "the series of spells" (which are also specifically called out in the example).

"The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. For example, a series of polymorph spells might turn a creature into a mouse, a lion, and then a snail. In this case, the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts."

The series of spells is not referring to polymorph.
Take a look at the d20srd version.

The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

Do you see the word polymorph anywhere? No? So that would mean your view that "the final spell in the series" refers to polymorph and only polymorph is false.

[Segev]

What part of this discussion is related to the summary you gave?
And could you give us your opinion whether Aracors "logic" is sound?

Perhaps I am misunderstanding his argument. I invite him to correct me (not anybody who's been arguing with him). My understanding was that his argument is essentially the same as the first of the two positions I gave.

[newguydude1]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding his argument. I invite him to correct me (not anybody who's been arguing with him). My understanding was that his argument is essentially the same as the first of the two positions I gave.

just look at post #93, #94, and some of his earlier posts where he challenges us to just look only at the first sentence and only the first sentence.

hes saying we should remove everything except the first sentence of the section because "grammar".

or post #110 actually, hes directly telling you that the last sentence is part of the polymorph example and therefore doesnt count.

[Aracor]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding his argument. I invite him to correct me (not anybody who's been arguing with him). My understanding was that his argument is essentially the same as the first of the two positions I gave.

Scenario #1 that you outlined is essentially identical to what I've been arguing.

[Aracor]

The series of spells is not referring to polymorph.
Take a look at the d20srd version.


Do you see the word polymorph anywhere? No? So that would mean your view that "the final spell in the series" refers to polymorph and only polymorph is false.

Or it means that the SRD version is poorly edited. That wouldn't be the first time.

[magicalmagicman]

Or it means that the SRD version is poorly edited. That wouldn't be the first time.

Make a new thread. I can't because when I made a new thread to prove someone wrong I got a citation for "declaring war". So you have to do it.

Make a new thread and convince one other person, just one, that...
1. Examples are not RAW so all of it should be stricken. Not just here but also in every single feat description, class feature description, etc. Everywhere.
2. In the section we are talking about, WotC wrote that paragraph just to point out that there are spells that produce varying effects. No instructions whatsoever. They intended to not give instructions and wanted us to use a "general rule" as you put it.
3. And that the last sentence in that section must be fully ignored. Because grammatically it can only refer to the polymorph example and cannot stand all alone by itself like it does in the d20srd.


Scenario #1 that you outlined is essentially identical to what I've been arguing.

No its not. Segev has not said, not even once, that we should remove everything from the section except the first sentence.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

How does it NOT? It says the same spell cast more than once can apply varying effects! Since the word effects is plural, that means that a single spell cast multiple times can create multiple effects on the recipient. The example it uses is a spell that (based on how the spell itself works) cannot create multiple effects at the same time, because the recipient can have only one shape at any given time. To argue that polymorph can do that would be to argue that the example sequence could end up as a mouse, lion, snail hybrid. Do you want Avatar: The Last Airbender animals? Because that's how you get Avatar: The Last Airbender animals!

[newguydude1]

yeah please take it to another thread, because i dont want to spend anymore time talking about why the last sentence of the rule text should be ignored and removed because wotc wanted to point something out and give no instructions.

the other discussion can stay here though. because no one else here, including my dm, says we should ignore rule text because of grammatical reasons. or that examples arent raw, which they are because thats what examples are, explanations of how things work, making this whole discussion truly pointless.

@everyone else in the thread
if im wrong, if aracor is not alone, and you all agree that everything except the first sentence has to be ignored because examples arent raw and that wotc only wanted to point something out without giving instructions, then please say so. i dont want to be presumptuous thinking hes the only one.

[Segev]

yeah please take it to another thread, because i dont want to spend anymore time talking about why the last sentence of the rule text should be ignored and removed.

the other discussion can stay here though. because no one else here, including my dm, says we should ignore rule text because of grammatical reasons. or that wotc points out stuff and gives no instructions.

I think, given that he's said scenario #1 in my post is what he's been arguing, that focusing on HOW he's arguing for it is...probably less than constructive. But I agree that ending this argument over how he's trying to argue for his position is probably for the best. :smalleek:

[magicalmagicman]

I think, given that he's said scenario #1 in my post is what he's been arguing, that focusing on HOW he's arguing for it is...probably less than constructive. But I agree that ending this argument over how he's trying to argue for his position is probably for the best. :smalleek:

I disagree. The reasons for your position matter. If I said I'm right because "I'm always right, therefore I'm right this time too" v.s. I'm right because *insert coherent logical reasoning based with sources such as RAW, FAQ, official examples, etc.*, there's a huge difference.

Your reasoning is something I can follow. Aracor's reasoning is nonsense. I agree with newguydude1 that it's a "tantrum". How else could you describe someone who genuinely with all of his heart believes that WotC left no instructions in that section, but only a point out and an example.

We should've started this with him proving examples aren't RAW and must be ignored. In any case Aracor, please make a new thread, lets see just how many people agree with your reasoning.

Don't make the thread about stacking spells. Make the thread about whether grammatically the last sentence is part of the polymorph example and that examples must be removed because they're not RAW.

[JNAProductions]

Someone reading a rule differently than you is not just throwing a tantrum. Especially given how shoddy the rules writing can be.

[magicalmagicman]

Someone reading a rule differently than you is not just throwing a tantrum. Especially given how shoddy the rules writing can be.

We're not talking about reading the rules differently. We're talking about removing the RAW that directly says you are wrong because of "grammar", and that WotC intentionally left no instructions in the section in question.

Well that's how I see it anyway. Trying to invalidate and remove rule text =/= reading differently.

edit: I have no interest in the topic regarding spell stacking. It's Aracors reasoning that is apalling to me.

[JNAProductions]

You're using an example from WotC as a rules source.

Look to any of the many, many, MANY NPC statblocks for why that's a bad idea.

I can follow Aracor's reasoning just fine. It makes sense from a grammatical and logical point of view.

[Aracor]

Moved our hijack to its own thread if people want to continue the discussion.

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?621639-Multiple-spells-with-differing-effects

[magicalmagicman]

You're using an example from WotC as a rules source.

Look to any of the many, many, MANY NPC statblocks for why that's a bad idea.

I can follow Aracor's reasoning just fine. It makes sense from a grammatical and logical point of view.

I did not say statblocks. Are you saying WotC stating an example to help illustrate a point is in leagues with statblocks?

So, just for the record, you agree with him that
1. Examples in class, feat, spell description, and any time the RAW text says "For example", all of this must be stricken, removed, and ignored?
2. WotC in the "same effect, differing results" section intentionally did not leave any instructions for the reader, and we must figure it out on our own using "general rules"
3. "None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts." cannot stand all by itself, it can only make sense when used with the polymorph example, the d20srd's entry of the rule makes literal no sense because it didn't give an example along with said sentence?