3rd Ed Multiple spells with differing effects [Archive]

Aracor

2020-11-03, 02:14 PM

I thought I'd move this to its own thread.

Continuing the discussion from here: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?621484-whats-a-good-feat-from-heroics-other-than-power-attack-and-martial-study/

If a character is targeted with a spell that can create multiple effects, such as Bestow Curse, Heroics, or Energy Immunity, can the recipient have multiple effects simultaneously, or does the last effect override all of the others caused by the same spell?

If someone is hit with Bestow Curse and is cursed to have a -6 to their charisma as a sorcerer, can they actually cast Bestow Curse on themselves and select -6 to strength to suppress the penalty to their charisma?

Here's the entire text that the 3.5 PHB has on the subject:
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:

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.

sreservoir

2020-11-03, 02:23 PM

If someone is hit with Bestow Curse and is cursed to have a -6 to their charisma as a sorcerer, can they actually cast Bestow Curse on themselves and select -6 to strength to suppress the penalty to their charisma?

On this particular topic, I submit that BoVD 28 has rules for dying curses defined in terms of multiple bestow (greater) curses.

JNAProductions

2020-11-03, 02:23 PM

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?

Quoted from the thread that spawned this.

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.

Those are two separate clauses. The first is the rule, the second is an example. It probably would've been better fit in the next section, as per the OP's quote, but that doesn't change what the rules are.

By your reading, MMM, if I suffer from Bestow Curse for -6 to my Constitution, I can cast Bestow Curse on myself, giving me a -6 to Charisma and that will effectively negate the -6 Con.
Is that how it is supposed to function?

magicalmagicman

2020-11-03, 02:38 PM

Quoted from the thread that spawned this.

Those are two separate clauses. The first is the rule, the second is an example. It probably would've been better fit in the next section, as per the OP's quote, but that doesn't change what the rules are.

By your reading, MMM, if I suffer from Bestow Curse for -6 to my Constitution, I can cast Bestow Curse on myself, giving me a -6 to Charisma and that will effectively negate the -6 Con.
Is that how it is supposed to function?

There are four clauses. And the first is not a rule. I'll try to be as concise as possible to see exactly where you disagree.
Clause 1:

The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once.
This is not a rule. This is the rules pointing out that there are spells that can sometimes produce varying effects. In other words, when the same spells produces varying effects on the same recipient, this section applies.
There's no instruction in this clause. Pointing out that the same spell can sometimes produce varying effects is not a rule.

Clause 2:

For example, a series of polymorph spells might turn a creature into a mouse, a lion, and then a snail.
This example is telling us how a spell can somtimes produce varying effects on the same recipient. There's still no instruction in this clause. The rules aren't telling us what to do anything yet. Clause 1&2 is just pointing out that there are spells that sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once.

Clause 3:

In this case, the last spell in the series trumps the others.
Our first instruction. In the case of polymorph only the last polymorph spell is active. All the previous castings of polymorph are not active. But what about non-polymorph spells?

Clause 4:

None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.
Now we have a general non-polymorph specific rule. It doesn't say none of the previous polymorphs are removed. It says previous spells, general.
Now as it has been repeatedly pointed out, d20srd copy and pastes this general instruction. So "grammatically" this sentence is not specific to only polymorph.

to summarize for absolute clarity.
Clause 1: Pointing something out
Clause 2: Example of what we pointed out
Clause 3: Example specific instructions.
Clause 4: General instructions.

So you and Aracor are saying,
"because of statblocks, examples are not RAW and must be removed."
"Clauses 2,3, and 4 are examples"
"The whole section is just pointing something out without giving any instructions"

So say this for the record. Say that
1. you believe WotC pointed something out without giving any instructions
2. Anytime the spell, class, feat descriptions say "for example", you must immediately strike it out, never use it, not even for extrapolation, because of statblocks.
so we can agree to disagree and go our separate ways.

JNAProductions

2020-11-03, 02:40 PM

So you're ignoring "In this case,"? Because that clearly denotes the latter portion as being about Polymorph.

And I notice you did not answer the bit about Bestow Curse-why is that?

Aracor

2020-11-03, 02:42 PM

magicalmagicman

2020-11-03, 02:48 PM

By your reading, MMM, if I suffer from Bestow Curse for -6 to my Constitution, I can cast Bestow Curse on myself, giving me a -6 to Charisma and that will effectively negate the -6 Con.
Is that how it is supposed to function?

This is my understanding of how the rules work.
"Same effect, Differing Results" applies only to same effects. So different spells causing the same effect like Shapechange and Polymorph will still be governed by this section.
Same spells or different spells causing different effects don't invoke this section. Because the section is never invoked, clause 1 is meaningless.
Bestow Curse causes differing effects, so it doesnt invoke this stacking rule.

But I could be wrong. I'm not engaging in the debate because I don't have an interest in the subject matter. But as I said before, it was Aracors, and your logic, that appalls me.

So you're ignoring "In this case,"? Because that clearly denotes the latter portion as being about Polymorph.

I have not. The entire "in this case" sentence is specific to polymorph. But the following sentence is not. I advise you to review my clauses I have spelled out for you.

Please say for the record you believe WotC left no instructions in this section, and that all examples everywhere must be stricken.

JNAProductions

2020-11-03, 02:51 PM

This is my understanding of how the rules work.
"Same effect, Differing Results" applies only to same effects. So different spells causing the same effect like Shapechange and Polymorph will still be governed by this section.
Same spells or different spells causing different effects don't invoke this section. Because the section is never invoked, clause 1 is meaningless.
Bestow Curse causes differing effects, so it doesnt invoke this stacking rule.

But I could be wrong. I'm not engaging in the debate because I don't have an interest in the subject matter. But as I said before, it was Aracors, and your logic, that appalls me.

I have not. The entire "in this case" sentence is specific to polymorph. But the following sentence is not. I advise you to review my clauses I have spelled out for you.

Bestow Curse causes differing effects, yes.
So does Energy immunity or Heroics. Unless you want to say use of Great Cleave is the same thing as use of Power Attack?

Aracor

2020-11-03, 02:55 PM

Segev

2020-11-03, 02:56 PM

There are four clauses. And the first is not a rule. I'll try to be as concise as possible to see exactly where you disagree.
Clause 1:

This is not a rule. This is the rules pointing out that there are spells that can sometimes produce varying effects. In other words, when the same spells produces varying effects on the same recipient, this section applies.
There's no instruction in this clause. Pointing out that the same spell can sometimes produce varying effects is not a rule.It is a rule. It explicitly states that these spells exist, and calls them out as distinct from the previous discussion of spells which apply the same effect not stacking with themselves.

It doesn't need to tell us to do anything. The spells do what they say they do. By pointing out this category of spells exists, this clarifies that the writers weren't meaning to lump all spells together in the previous rule. In so doing, they tell us that a spell which does not fall into the previous rule's category defaults to doing what it says it does. So, if a spell is NOT applying the same effect (i.e., it is applying different effects with different castings), then each effect it applies on each casting does, in fact, apply. Because that's what the spell says it does, and it isn't covered by the previously-discussed category which expressly doesn't stack with itself.

Clause 2:

This example is telling us how a spell can somtimes produce varying effects on the same recipient. There's still no instruction in this clause. The rules aren't telling us what to do anything yet. Clause 1&2 is just pointing out that there are spells that sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once.This is pointing out a special case of spells that apply different effects.

Clause 3:

Our first instruction. In the case of polymorph only the last polymorph spell is active. All the previous castings of polymorph are not active. But what about non-polymorph spells?The polymorph example makes it very clear what is being discussed: situations where having multiple effects applied simultaneously creates a paradox. The instruction here is clear, and I think we all agree on it.

However, what we disagree on is the verb's meaning. You seem to be saying that the sentence, "Being wet trumps wearing a blue shirt," would mean that, if you get wet, your blue shirt instantly vanishes, because you can't be doing both. if you get wet, you are no longer wearing a blue shirt, because you can't do both (edited for better explanation/example). I am arguing that the sentence doesn't make sense, because being wet and wearing a blue shirt pose no conflict, and therefore one cannot trump the other. They exist independently.

Because of the example given and the verb chosen, it is clear to me that the rule here is a special case of the broader default rule. The default rule is, "Spells do what they say they do." We know we're outside the special case category of "spells which apply the same effect on each casting," and now we're looking at a special case of "spells which apply different effects upon each casting" where we still have a paradox if we just follow the default rule. The default rule of "spells do what they say they do" requires clarification as to which spell's effects trump the others when those effects are in conflict. This is, just to repeat for emphasis, because this special category of spells creates a paradox whereby you can't have both effects simultaneously operative. You cannot - as in the case of polymorph - be both a frog and a sparrow. THus, this rule tells us that the most recent one trumps the other(s), but the other(s) is/are still running "in the background."

Again, it's a special case. The default case is that spells do what they say they do, and they can apply multiple different effects with different castings (because they say they apply the effects and no rule exists to countermand that).

Clause 4:

Now we have a general non-polymorph specific rule. It doesn't say none of the previous polymorphs are removed. It says previous spells, general.
Now as it has been repeatedly pointed out, d20srd copy and pastes this general instruction. So "grammatically" this sentence is not specific to only polymorph.Obviously, it is not specific to polymorph. Polymorph is an example of spells who apply different effects with each casting wherein these effects. It gives us sufficient information to extrapolate the kinds of spells being discussed. That is, spells whose effects cannot be simultaneously in effect.

to summarize for absolute clarity.
Clause 1: Pointing something out
Clause 2: Example of what we pointed out
Clause 3: Example specific instructions.
Clause 4: General instructions.Incorrect.

Clause 1: Pointing something out to distinguish it from the previously-discussed special case. A situation wherein the default rules apply.
Clause 2: Example acknowledging another special case that remains after the previously-discussed special case is separated out.
Clause 3: Specific instructions.
Clause 4: Clarification that this extends to all spells that fit the category.

So you and Aracor are saying,
"because of statblocks, examples are not RAW and must be removed."
"Clauses 2,3, and 4 are examples"
"The whole section is just pointing something out without giving any instructions"I can't speak for anybody but me, but that is not my argument. Please see above for my argument. My argument nevertheless leads to the same conclusion that Aracor is arguing in favor of.

JNAProductions

2020-11-03, 02:57 PM

I will also say, I can see MMM's logic. I disagree with it as the most accurate, but I can see the reading that results in this conclusion.

magicalmagicman

2020-11-03, 03:00 PM

Bestow Curse causes differing effects, yes.
So does Energy immunity or Heroics. Unless you want to say use of Great Cleave is the same thing as use of Power Attack?

That is the contention for individual tables. The argument can be said heroics:power attack and heroics:cleave is to polymorph:lion and polymorph:fish. Whether this is true or not is not clarified anywhere, not even in rules comepndium or the FAQ, so its under DM adjudication, hence why I'm not engaging in the debate.

Honestly I read that thread to see if there were any good feats to gain with heroics. But your and Aracor's logic ground my gears so i said my piece.

You still haven't given your position on whether that section truly did leave 0 instructions and that examples must be entirely stricken even when they're part of the same paragraph of the spell, class, and feat description.

JNAProductions

2020-11-03, 03:01 PM

That is the contention for individual tables. The argument can be said heroics:power attack and heroics:cleave is to polymorph:lion and polymorph:fish. Whether this is true or not is not clarified anywhere, not even in rules comepndium or the FAQ, so its under DM adjudication, hence why I'm not engaging in the debate.

Honestly I read that thread to see if there were any good feats to gain with heroics. But your and Aracor's logic ground my gears so i said my piece.

You still haven't given your position on whether that section truly did leave 0 instructions and that examples must be entirely stricken even when they're part of the same paragraph of the spell, class, and feat description.

Read what Segev wrote. As usual, they write the truth.

Aracor

2020-11-03, 03:02 PM

I will also say, I can see MMM's logic. I disagree with it as the most accurate, but I can see the reading that results in this conclusion.

I can as well. I simply disagree with his conclusion that the first sentence provides no instruction. That logic is what leads to the conclusion that instruction MUST exist somewhere in the other clauses.

icefractal

2020-11-03, 03:10 PM

I can't see any gap between Bestow Curse and Heroics. If Heroics: Power Attack and Heroics: Combat Reflexes are "the same effect" then so are Bestow Curse: Strength Penalty and Bestow Curse: Dex Penalty.

Personally - and I'm not saying this is or isn't RAW - I treat it as simply: "the same effect doesn't stack with itself, even for untyped bonuses".

magicalmagicman

2020-11-03, 03:13 PM

Read what Segev wrote. As usual, they write the truth.

See, Segev isn't saying Clause 2, 3, and 4 are examples and examples must be stricken from the books. His disagreements with me ultimately lead to the same conclusion. Nothing is ignored or removed. Everything is part of RAW. You cannot ignore or remove any text.

You specifically however, unlike Segev, said statblocks are the reason we must ignore examples from everywhere, because statblocks are error-ridden and terrible therefore all examples in all of d&d are unreliable and unusable, including ones in feat, class, and spell descriptions, and rule text even when the "for example" is in the middle of the first paragraph.

I don't have a problem with Segev's reasoning. I don't think we even disagree. I believe resist energy cold and resist energy fire are differing effects and therefore stack. No opinion on heroics.

JNAProductions

2020-11-03, 03:23 PM

See, Segev isn't saying Clause 2, 3, and 4 are examples and examples must be stricken from the books. His disagreements with me ultimately lead to the same conclusion. Nothing is ignored or removed. Everything is part of RAW. You cannot ignore or remove any text.

You specifically however, unlike Segev, said statblocks are the reason we must ignore examples from everywhere, because statblocks are error-ridden and terrible therefore all examples in all of d&d are unreliable and unusable, including ones in feat, class, and spell descriptions, and rule text even when the "for example" is in the middle of the first paragraph.

I don't have a problem with Segev's reasoning. I don't think we even disagree. I believe resist energy cold and resist energy fire are differing effects and therefore stack. No opinion on heroics.

Then I wrote my position poorly, and Segev articulated it better. I can freely admit they're better at that than I.

magicalmagicman

2020-11-03, 03:28 PM

Then I wrote my position poorly, and Segev articulated it better. I can freely admit they're better at that than I.

This is without a doubt Aracor's position, which I was calling him out for until you came to his defense.

So I guess we can all agree Aracor is alone when he thinks we should remove 3 of the 4 sentences of the rule text by RAW.

Aracor

2020-11-03, 03:40 PM

This is without a doubt Aracor's position, which I was calling him out for until you came to his defense.

So I guess we can all agree Aracor is alone when he thinks we should remove 3 of the 4 sentences of the rule text by RAW.
Apparently I too am poor at articulating my argument. That I'm aware of, I never said to ignore the rest of the sentences entirely. I said they aren't a part of the actual rule. I'm in favor of treating them as part of an example which is intended to clarify. They shouldn't be ignored, but their context is important - and their context is in the form of a single narrow example, not that they should be all-encompassing.

Segev's final argument matches mine almost point for point.

Darg

2020-11-03, 03:42 PM

Combining Magical Effects

In the most general sense spells don't interact with each other or prevent each other from working. However we have a few extra rules for when spells are in each other's faces.

Stacking Effects

Spells that give you bonuses or penalties don't stack with themselves, but are still active as separate instances. Generally bonuses or penalties of the same type don't stack even if they come from different effects. Here are some interactions to further explain scenarios where bonuses and penalties interact:

Different Bonus Names: the same modifier types don't stack, but untyped bonuses and penalties do stack but still follows the earlier rule that same sources don't stack.

Same Effect More Than Once in Different Strengths: If the same spell used multiple times or there is an identical effect, only the strongest applies, but all effects are still active.

Same Effect With Differing Results: When using a single spell multiple times that has the exact same effect but the outcome can be different than the previous cast, the most recently cast spell takes precedence. You stop benefitting from previous castings until the most recent is removed in some way.

One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant: Sometimes different spells can provide the same bonus/penalty. In that case the most recent effect takes precedence. However, this does not negate any other bonus or penalty the previous different spell provides. Shapechange provides the bonuses of polymorph and changing at will. The new polymorph bonus from a more recent cast takes effect but does not negate the changing at will bonus shapechange provided. So the creature on its next turn can provide itself with a fresher bonus of polymorph negating the previous benefit. If the polymorph spell is still active when shapechange ends, it's bonus is still active and the creature benefits from it. Also, if you become stone you are simply stone. Which means it makes irrelevant any bonus/penalty that you might have that is altered by becoming stone. Because you are mindless stone you can't think to use your shapechange at will ability and because you are no longer a creature the polymorph bonus no longer applies.

Multiple Mental Control Effects: As stated just previously, certain bonuses and penalties simply make others non-applicable. Hold Person robs the creature of acting at all. This means that while you still can control the creature with mental control it can't act while hold person is in effect. Charisma check if mental control effects give conflicting orders.

Spells With Opposite Effects

Bonuses and penalties accrue in the order that they are applied and are applied normally.

Instantaneous Effects

Spells with instantaneous durations work cumulatively.

This is how I see it. As I mentioned in the other thread, it comes down to how one perceives a bonus or penalty to an attribute to be. Polymorph is providing bonuses/penalties that don't stack with itself as it is used as an example for a lower rank rule that is under the rule that applies to bonuses and penalties. Mind control effects are providing a penalty to the creature being controlled.

Basically, you have the general rule where spells don't interact, then you have the more specific rule for when spells act in the same place about spells providing bonuses and penalties not stacking with itself (animal affinity falls under this), and then you have even more specific rules. Specific trumps "general specific" trumps general.

Edit: Same Effect With Differing Results is describing what happens when such a scenario occurs, not providing additional rules. This applies to all italicized segments.

Melcar

2020-11-03, 06:02 PM

If a character is targeted with a spell that can create multiple effects, such as Bestow Curse, Heroics, or Energy Immunity, can the recipient have multiple effects simultaneously, or does the last effect override all of the others caused by the same spell?

In my humble opinion, yes, you can cast Heroics multiple times and receive multiple different feats. Likewise you can cast Energy Immunity 5 times to become immune to all 5 elements (Acid, Cold, Electricity, Fire, and Sonic).

NB: I'm not interested in discussing the rules on this further. This post is just a vote, to show which side I stand. I fully understand that others strongly disagree. This is however how I employ the rules as a DM and as a player (unless my DM rules otherwise, for better or worse).

Happy debate folks!

Gruftzwerg

2020-11-03, 11:12 PM

Combining Magical Effects

In the most general sense spells don't interact with each other or prevent each other from working. However we have a few extra rules for when spells are in each other's faces.

Stacking Effects

...

Thx for posting the entire thing. Because as I mentioned out in the other thread, the layout and structure how rules are presented is very important and shouldn't be ignored.

1. The "Combining Magical Effects" section starts to talk about that most spells don't interact or prevent each other from working, but that this section will now present situations/circumstances where they interact.

2. It brakes the different kinds of interactions down into rules named as: Different Bonus Names, Same Effect More Than Once in Different Strengths, Same Effect With Differing Results, One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant, Multiple Mental Control Effects. It gives each of these "exceptions" (!) a paragraph where you are given instructions.

3. This means that "Same Effect With Differing Results" has to be some kind of special interaction and may not default to "spells work as they would normally".

4. Which drives us to the conclusion that:

The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once.
is also describing a situation where we have some kind of special interaction to expect. You may not default to normal spell resolving, because the entire section is declared as non-normal interaction.

5. Which leaves us with the need of rules to resolve this situation. And for this purpose we are given an representative example for the exception mentioned in this very paragraph and how it is resolved:

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.
And no, this example (!) is not an exception to "Same Effect With Differing Results" because the keyword here is example and not exception (example != exception unless it is explicitly called out as exception somehow). If that would have been the purpose, it would have gotten a separate rule name and its own paragraph section.

6. And lastly we are given general instructions how to resolve these kind of interactions:

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

There is only a single way to interpret this as long as you don't ignore text/rule structure and keywords. The structure and keywords fulfill a purpose and aren't just there as eye candy.

KillianHawkeye

2020-11-04, 02:03 AM

I will argue against any reading that says I can't cast multiple resist energy spells to protect myself against more than one type of energy damage at a time.

Gruftzwerg

2020-11-04, 04:34 AM

I will argue against any reading that says I can't cast multiple resist energy spells to protect myself against more than one type of energy damage at a time.

Sorry that I have to ask, but with what are you "arguing" and what for?

So far I only see that you have expressed the will to argue for your interpretation. But what is missing is, are you talking about RAI (rules as intended), which is fine (but point it out would is nice), or about RAW (rules as written).

Further, if you want to "argue", you should either represent an argument or respond to one. Otherwise it is just merely your personal favoring.

I hope I didn't sound harsh or something, I'm just a bit confused & curious what your post is supposed to mean..^^

ciopo

2020-11-04, 05:55 AM

I've had a thought, potions and scrolls of resist energy are actually typed with the specific resistance you gain.

It follows that potion of fire resistance and potion of ice resistance are different items, and therefore do stack, right?

so the spells that are required to make those potions are different form each other, right? otherwise they would result in the same potion? :P

In slighty more seriousness, since this has gone unanswered on the other topic, @Gruftzwerg you've asked me to find examples of casters preparing two resist energy and you pointed out your interpretation of energy immunity about
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.
I posit that the "other" in "any other two such spells that protect against different types of energy" is an inclusive other ( i.e. "any two casting of any spell that grants energy resistance or immunity" ), but even if we interpret it to not be inclusive, it can still be read as "casting two spells (other than energy immunity) that protect against different types of energy will stack"

about examples, Expedition to the ruins of Greyhawks, page 80,
The Master of Hounds begins in area C2 but quickly
moves to C1 when the alarm is sounded. In the first round,
he moves and casts resist energy (fire) on himself. If given the
opportunity, he also casts resist energy (electricity). and another encounter in that module.

Fortress of the yuan.ti, page 56, in a statblock the source of resist fire and resist lightnign is cited to be resist energy casted twice

I'm taking a browsing to see if I find more

Segev

2020-11-04, 06:42 AM

Looking at the magic item lists, I do see potions list “protection from energy (type),” but scrolls just list “protection from energy.”

I think the idea here is that the potion is “more cast already” than is the scroll. That is, the potion maker made all the decisions about which effect the potion will have when he made it, while a scroll is casting the spell when it’s used and thus the scroll reader chooses the energy type. This might open some fiction-layer questions about how the scroll reader makes choices when reading a scroll, but I think that’s the idea, anyway.

Not sure what implications this has for the discussion here, though. I bring it up because I saw somebody mention potions and scrolls of energy resistance having the energy type listed as part of the item, and I confirm potions do but scrolls do not.

Gruftzwerg

2020-11-04, 07:13 AM

Segev

2020-11-04, 09:26 AM

Gruftzwerg

2020-11-04, 10:08 AM

By your interpretation, anyway. I still find the argument unconvincing, though I do understand why you do accept it.

To me, it remains clear that the rule is that spells do what they say they do, unless the rule regarding stacking the same effect comes into play, or the case where the different effects stacking doesn’t make sense comes up.

Nowhere does it say that effects are suppressed, only that one trumps another. And since trumping requires there to be a conflict to be resolved by the trump, it doesn’t apply when there is no conflict.

Imho you are getting confused by the fact that some spells can have an (main-)effect where you are able to choose from several (sub-)effect to apply to a target (e.g. Bestow Curse). Choosing an (sub-)effect for Bestow Curse is part of the spells (main-) effect. Choosing an Element type is also part of the effect of Energy Immunity/Resist Energy.

edit: Well it does say trump and not suppressed. But if you read:

None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.
it becomes clear, that the spells are suppressed while the final spell in the series lasts. Different wording, same result/meaning.

Segev

2020-11-04, 12:24 PM

Imho you are getting confused by the fact that some spells can have an (main-)effect where you are able to choose from several (sub-)effect to apply to a target (e.g. Bestow Curse). Choosing an (sub-)effect for Bestow Curse is part of the spells (main-) effect. Choosing an Element type is also part of the effect of Energy Immunity/Resist Energy.

edit: Well it does say trump and not suppressed. But if you read:

it becomes clear, that the spells are suppressed while the final spell in the series lasts. Different wording, same result/meaning.

No, it is clear that that's talking about spells which cannot have their effects in play together, because the effects become irrelevant due to being trumped by the later ones. That is the conclusion to the rule whose explanation began earlier.

Nothing says that a spell which can have different effects that do not conflict has those effects suppressed. The reason the ones in question "become irrelevant" is because they're trumped by the ones with which they'd conflict.

Darg

2020-11-04, 02:14 PM

No, it is clear that that's talking about spells which cannot have their effects in play together, because the effects become irrelevant due to being trumped by the later ones. That is the conclusion to the rule whose explanation began earlier.

Nothing says that a spell which can have different effects that do not conflict has those effects suppressed. The reason the ones in question "become irrelevant" is because they're trumped by the ones with which they'd conflict.

It doesn't say they have to conflict either. The next 2 scenarios talk about different spells interacting with each other and the conflicts that arise from that. Same Effect With Differing Results is talking about the exact same spell used on the target multiple times. As I mentioned above, the rules state that any spell that provides a bonus or penalty does not stack with itself which is the baseline general rule. The fact that they used polymorph as an example in a scenario under that rule implies that polymorph is providing bonuses or penalties and is subject to that rule. It's even harder to say that animal affinity isn't providing bonuses which means it doesn't stack with itself.

Segev

2020-11-04, 02:17 PM

It doesn't say they have to conflict either. The next 2 scenarios talk about different spells interacting with each other and the conflicts that arise from that. Same Effect With Differing Results is talking about the exact same spell used on the target multiple times. As I mentioned above, the rules state that any spell that provides a bonus or penalty does not stack with itself which is the baseline general rule. The fact that they used polymorph as an example in a scenario under that rule implies that polymorph is providing bonuses or penalties and is subject to that rule. It's even harder to say that animal affinity isn't providing bonuses which means it doesn't stack with itself.

It says some spells can have differing effects. Full stop.

Then it tells us what to do if this causes problems.

The fact that they expand it to other spells also trumping when they have conflicting effects demonstrates that it can't be a blanket rule. Otherwise, every spell would be the only one active. That's right, if you cast fly on somebody, and then they get endure elements cast, since the rule as you're interpreting it makes fly's effect "irrelevant" while endure elements is in place, you can make them drop out of the sky with a first level buff.

Aracor

2020-11-04, 03:23 PM

And no, this example (!) is not an exception to "Same Effect With Differing Results" because the keyword here is example and not exception (example != exception unless it is explicitly called out as exception somehow). If that would have been the purpose, it would have gotten a separate rule name and its own paragraph section.

Why do you assume that the example (which by definition does NOT have to be representative) is not only representative, but has no exceptions whatsoever? Or if you're not saying that, based on how you're reading this section, how would you interpret an exception existing, and do you have an example of one?

If the rule was indeed intended to say that this cannot happen, they don't even need to have an example. They could have worded it much more easily by saying "If a spell can create multiple results, only the most recent one can affect a recipient at any given time. Previous spells aren't removed or dispelled, but they are inactive until the final spell in the series is gone." Then the example is completely unnecessary.

To me, the first sentence is saying: "Hey, a situation can arise when a single spell or effect can create different results. This is okay, but it can potentially make some weird interactions. Here's an example where it's not okay and how to resolve it."

Which means that (as Segev has pointed out), sometimes one spell has to trump another because they CANNOT exist side by side.

ciopo

2020-11-04, 06:04 PM

I'm feeling mixed feelings now, because of spells such as enhanced wild shape that calls out specifically that it can be stacked. I can see it being both a reinforcing/reminder that this is a standard behaviour or the exception to the rule.

Oh well.

I wonder if there is a spell that calls it out like some feats do , those that have a "normal : something" like combat expertise

Segev

2020-11-04, 06:27 PM

I was of the opinion that either reading was reasonable, though I thought mine more accurate. However, since realizing the reason I disagree with means that any spell effect suppresses all other spell effects previously on the target, I have determined that the reading I do not agree with is definitely neither RAI nor RAW.

Darg

2020-11-04, 06:28 PM

It says some spells can have differing effects. Full stop.

It says, "The same spell (with an A not an O) can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once." That is all it says.

Then it tells us what to do if this causes problems.

Except it doesn't say that the effects are conflicting or causing problems. Just that the same spell has a different effect every time it was applied and that it was applied 3 times. There is no other information there unless deep thought erroneously rears its ugly head. This scenario is talking about the rule that was stated 5 paragraphs back: "Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves." The only other rules are about spells with opposite effects and instantaneous effects. Those have their own sections.

The fact that they expand it to other spells also trumping when they have conflicting effects demonstrates that it can't be a blanket rule. Otherwise, every spell would be the only one active. That's right, if you cast fly on somebody, and then they get endure elements cast, since the rule as you're interpreting it makes fly's effect "irrelevant" while endure elements is in place, you can make them drop out of the sky with a first level buff.

You are misreading my argument. My argument is that the Animal Affinity power doesn't stack with itself because it is providing a bonus. If you have 3 casts of it on yourself in the order of STR, DEX, and CON then the last one in the order has precedence. That means you have a bonus to CON and the other casts are irrelevant unless the instance of the effect with CON is ended before the other effects expire. You can totally have different spells stack on each other as long as they don't conflict with the bonus types rule or they don't make each other irrelevant. Hence the polymorph and shapechange example in the PHB.

I was of the opinion that either reading was reasonable, though I thought mine more accurate. However, since realizing the reason I disagree with means that any spell effect suppresses all other spell effects previously on the target, I have determined that the reading I do not agree with is definitely neither RAI nor RAW.

I think you turned a corner some where and don't know how to get back. At least don't misunderstand the opposing argument.

Segev

2020-11-04, 06:42 PM

It says, "The same spell (with an A not an O) can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once." That is all it says.

Except it doesn't say that the effects are conflicting or causing problems. Just that the same spell has a different effect every time it was applied and that it was applied 3 times. There is no other information there unless deep thought erroneously rears its ugly head. This scenario is talking about the rule that was stated 5 paragraphs back: "Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves." The only other rules are about spells with opposite effects and instantaneous effects. Those have their own sections.

You are misreading my argument. My argument is that the Animal Affinity power doesn't stack with itself because it is providing a bonus. If you have 3 casts of it on yourself in the order of STR, DEX, and CON then the last one in the order has precedence. That means you have a bonus to CON and the other casts are irrelevant unless the instance of the effect with CON is ended before the other effects expire. You can totally have different spells stack on each other as long as they don't conflict with the bonus types rule or they don't make each other irrelevant. Hence the polymorph and shapechange example in the PHB.

I think you turned a corner some where and don't know how to get back. At least don't misunderstand the opposing argument.

I understand it perfectly well. The trouble is that the continuing examples of the rule in question include shapechange being trumped by polymorph, which means that, if differing effects are trumped by later effects, fly is trumped by Bull's Strength.

Now, more to the point? Shapechange only has the part of its effect that is in conflict with polymorph trumped, since the example expressly says the ability to change their own shape granted by shapechange remains in effect. So...evidence that non-conflicting effects are not "trumped" nor suppressed.

Now, if you believe I misunderstand the argument, please feel free to correct me. But I ask that you fully explain where my error in expressing the argument is.

Darg

2020-11-04, 06:58 PM

I understand it perfectly well. The trouble is that the continuing examples of the rule in question include shapechange being trumped by polymorph, which means that, if differing effects are trumped by later effects, fly is trumped by Bull's Strength.

You really aren't. It's saying that if Fly gave you flight speed from wings, air running, or weight reduction then the most recently cast Fly would be the one to take effect and you wouldn't benefit from the previous casts. Fly trumps Fly and Bull's Strength trumps Bull's Strength.

Now, more to the point? Shapechange only has the part of its effect that is in conflict with polymorph trumped, since the example expressly says the ability to change their own shape granted by shapechange remains in effect. So...evidence that non-conflicting effects are not "trumped" nor suppressed.

I never once said that different effects couldn't make other effects irrelevant or that different spells couldn't make other spells' effects irrelevant while leaving some effects untouched. My argument is that even if you have multiple castings of Shapechange on yourself you could only ever benefit from the free action once per round. If Shapechange didn't trump itself you could change multiple times per round, even in the middle of an action to multiply the number of attacks you could make.

Now, if you believe I misunderstand the argument, please feel free to correct me. But I ask that you fully explain where my error in expressing the argument is.

I believe you had the gist of it at one point, but got way off track at somewhere. Although that is me simply reading your posts, possibly imprinting my thoughts into your statements.

Segev

2020-11-04, 08:11 PM

You really aren't. It's saying that if Fly gave you flight speed from wings, air running, or weight reduction then the most recently cast Fly would be the one to take effect and you wouldn't benefit from the previous casts. Fly trumps Fly and Bull's Strength trumps Bull's Strength.

I never once said that different effects couldn't make other effects irrelevant or that different spells couldn't make other spells' effects irrelevant while leaving some effects untouched. My argument is that even if you have multiple castings of Shapechange on yourself you could only ever benefit from the free action once per round. If Shapechange didn't trump itself you could change multiple times per round, even in the middle of an action to multiply the number of attacks you could make.

I believe you had the gist of it at one point, but got way off track at somewhere. Although that is me simply reading your posts, possibly imprinting my thoughts into your statements.
Okay, there are two examples given of the rule we're debating the scope of.

That rule being "the latest spell trumps the others."

The first example is polymorph followed by polymorph. To use my own example, if you were polymorphed into a T-rex, and then polymorphed into a dog, the second one trumps the first, and you're a dog until it runs out or is otherwise removed (at which point you either become a t-rex again if that's still active, or yourself if it's not).

The second example is shapechange followed by polymorph, and polymorph still trumps shapechange and turns you into (say) a dog. But it specifically doesn't trump (as it can't, since there's no conflict) the shapechange-granted power to change your own shape, so you can just turn back into a t-rex, or into a dragon, or into a sea lion if you like.

So, here, we have two things to take away from this:

If the trumping is universal, regardless of whether it makes sense, and really means other effects are suppressed, then it suppresses all spells, not just the same spell, since the trumping operates on shapechange's granted form to trump it with polymorph's granted form.
Therefore, if this is true, then any spell on you that grants one effect is trumped by any other spell that grants any other effect. e.g. a fly spell is trumped by an endure elements spell, since only the most recent one would apply and the other becomes irrelevant until the newest one is gone.
We have evidence that not every effect is trumped by having a second spell cast on you: the shapechange-granted ability to change form is not "rendered irrelevant," trumped, suppressed, or anything else. It's still there and the caster can change forms right out of whatever the polymorph put him in.
This backs up the point that spells that grant differing effects and don't need to have what trumps what determined simply have those effects all in play at once.

Gruftzwerg

2020-11-04, 11:08 PM

Why do you assume that the example (which by definition does NOT have to be representative) is not only representative, but has no exceptions whatsoever? Or if you're not saying that, based on how you're reading this section, how would you interpret an exception existing, and do you have an example of one?

If the rule was indeed intended to say that this cannot happen, they don't even need to have an example. They could have worded it much more easily by saying "If a spell can create multiple results, only the most recent one can affect a recipient at any given time. Previous spells aren't removed or dispelled, but they are inactive until the final spell in the series is gone." Then the example is completely unnecessary.

To me, the first sentence is saying: "Hey, a situation can arise when a single spell or effect can create different results. This is okay, but it can potentially make some weird interactions. Here's an example where it's not okay and how to resolve it."

Which means that (as Segev has pointed out), sometimes one spell has to trump another because they CANNOT exist side by side.

My post #22 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24785995&postcount=22) seems to be ignored (I guess because a few more followed "quickly" after).

I would give you credits for plausibility (50/50), if the rules on the page would have been presented as a single block of text. But that is not the case. It has a structure which is meant to guide you trough the rules for a more accurate understanding. And you are ignoring it. Pls read #22 and try to understand where I'm coming from. Than we can talk. I don't want to repeat the same argument here, since I already posted it. It you take the big picture of the entire page (Combining Magical Effects: phb 171-172 iirc) it is clear, that your interpretation ain't a possibility anymore.

Segev

2020-11-04, 11:13 PM

My post #22 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24785995&postcount=22) seems to be ignored (I guess because a few more followed "quickly" after).

I would give you credits for plausibility (50/50), if the rules on the page would have been presented as a single block of text. But that is not the case. It has a structure which is meant to guide you trough the rules for a more accurate understanding. And you are ignoring it. Pls read #22 and try to understand where I'm coming from. Than we can talk. I don't want to repeat the same argument here, since I already posted it. It you take the big picture of the entire page (Combining Magical Effects: phb 171-172 iirc) it is clear, that your interpretation ain't a possibility anymore.

I didn't ignore it. I disputed it.

I totally understand how you come to that conclusion.

I'd be happy to leave it at a discussion of two interpretations and let DMs use them to judge for their own games, but I stumbled onto the realization that that interpretation both is countered by the fact that shapechange still lets you change shape - it's not entirley suppressed by polymorph - and the fact that, if it worked as you're interpreting, fly would be suppressed by endure elements, which would be suppressed by water breathing, which would be suppressed by haste, which would be suppressed by aid, which would be suppressed by guidance.

Gruftzwerg

2020-11-04, 11:30 PM

I didn't ignore it. I disputed it.

I totally understand how you come to that conclusion.

I'd be happy to leave it at a discussion of two interpretations and let DMs use them to judge for their own games, but I stumbled onto the realization that that interpretation both is countered by the fact that shapechange still lets you change shape - it's not entirley suppressed by polymorph - and the fact that, if it worked as you're interpreting, fly would be suppressed by endure elements, which would be suppressed by water breathing, which would be suppressed by haste, which would be suppressed by aid, which would be suppressed by guidance.

You are mixing up 2 different rules the wrong way here.

1. Same Effect with Differing Results:
This rule talks about how a series of the same spell (in this chase Polymorph) with varying effects is resolved and the last one trumps the others.

&
2. One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant:
Here we have different spells affecting each other (in this chase Polymorph being cast after Shapechage).

Conclusion:
Different spells will never suppress each other (unless otherwise mentioned^^). I think you mixed the two separate rules somehow into one. Happens to all of us ;)

edit: typo

Max Caysey

2020-11-05, 05:38 AM

On this particular topic, I submit that BoVD 28 has rules for dying curses defined in terms of multiple bestow (greater) curses.

I understand how this is a rules discussion and the designers have been wrong many times, but I think this is an interesting example. Here it seems that multiple curses stack/layer and all effect are not suppressed!

Gruftzwerg

2020-11-05, 06:32 AM

I understand how this is a rules discussion and the designers have been wrong many times, but I think this is an interesting example. Here it seems that multiple curses stack/layer and all effect are not suppressed!

Just because the dying evil character can roll by chance the option to use multiple curses doesn't allow him to stack em all on one target. I don't see any indicator for that. So, if the evil character has a lucky roll,he may curse multiple persons (I guess the biggest one on his killer and the remaining for his friends/henchmen).

If I should missed any indicator for stacking, pls let me know and lead me to it with a quote.

Max Caysey

2020-11-05, 08:19 AM

Just because the dying evil character can roll by chance the option to use multiple curses doesn't allow him to stack em all on one target. I don't see any indicator for that. So, if the evil character has a lucky roll,he may curse multiple persons (I guess the biggest one on his killer and the remaining for his friends/henchmen).

If I should missed any indicator for stacking, pls let me know and lead me to it with a quote.

I would argue, that: "... the target need not be present when the curse is delivered." ,

And further down the page: "The target of the dying curse...",

This I take to mean that the dying person could indeed target a single person/creature. If the dying creature couldn't, its would have said "target[s]"... Since they refer to the target as a singular, I aquate that to meaning that multiple curses can affect a single target... and that it means that they all affect the target, not just the last in line!

That would be my arguement.. and I would argue that if you can do that with bestow curse, I would argue that then you can with Elemental Immunity and Heroics too... but thats just my reasoning!

Aracor

2020-11-05, 09:06 AM

1. The "Combining Magical Effects" section starts to talk about that most spells don't interact or prevent each other from working, but that this section will now present situations/circumstances where they interact.
True, but it also clarifies that these are "general rules when spells or magical effects operate in the same place".

2. It brakes the different kinds of interactions down into rules named as: Different Bonus Names, Same Effect More Than Once in Different Strengths, Same Effect With Differing Results, One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant, Multiple Mental Control Effects. It gives each of these "exceptions" (!) a paragraph where you are given instructions.

3. This means that "Same Effect With Differing Results" has to be some kind of special interaction and may not default to "spells work as they would normally".
Again, I agree. But I'll stress that I agree here only because you're using the word "may".

4. Which drives us to the conclusion that:

is also describing a situation where we have some kind of special interaction to expect. You may not default to normal spell resolving, because the entire section is declared as non-normal interaction. But you're still ignoring the actual WORDING of both the name of the ability and the first sentence in that case. The wording is not only that this is a thing that happens, but tacitly acknowledging that it is okay. The main paragraph of this section and then the first two subheadings are basically talking about how it things don't work for various reasons. Either that spells which provide bonuses don't stack with themselves, or that bonuses of the same type don't stack, or that bonuses of different names DO stack. This is saying that there are opportunities on both sides of that coin, depending on what the specific result IS.

5. Which leaves us with the need of rules to resolve this situation. And for this purpose we are given an representative example for the exception mentioned in this very paragraph and how it is resolved:

And no, this example (!) is not an exception to "Same Effect With Differing Results" because the keyword here is example and not exception (example != exception unless it is explicitly called out as exception somehow). If that would have been the purpose, it would have gotten a separate rule name and its own paragraph section.
I agree that it's not an exception, but it is an example. An example, by definition, is NARROWER than the rule itself, even if it does actually cover 95% of cases. If the rule is so narrow that one example will cover the entire rule, then they don't bother putting in an example.

Demonstration: Two stage switches can be in either an on or off position. As an example, most switches built into the wall of a building are standardized so that UP is on and DOWN is off.

That's the entire text of my demonstration rule. Based on it, I would assume that in general, I see a switch up that it's on. But if I see the switch up and a light still off, I would try the switch before I assume the bulb needs to be replaced. You and I both know that there are exceptions. If there are two different switches powering the same light, then there has to be a complete circuit for the device to be powered. I have a living room that if both of the switches are the same direction, the lights are on. If one is up and one is down, the lights are off. Because there are two switches. Sometimes people put a switch in upside-down accidentally and are too lazy to fix it.

So I'll ask again here: Under what circumstances would the example be invalid based on your reading of the words? And how would you address how the rules work outside of the example? Even if the example is representative, it would not be all-encompassing.

6. And lastly we are given general instructions how to resolve these kind of interactions:
And I still maintain that this is referring to the example. Otherwise it would be more grammatically correct to put these instructions with the rule itself BEFORE the example rather than after the example. You can see that this format is maintained throughout the entire section. If they change the subject away from the example, they use a carriage return and start a new paragraph.

There is only a single way to interpret this as long as you don't ignore text/rule structure and keywords. The structure and keywords fulfill a purpose and aren't just there as eye candy.

And as I'm pointing out here, you're simply wrong. Your interpretation and mine are clearly in disagreement, and neither of us are ignoring the structure and keywords.

Gruftzwerg

2020-11-05, 09:55 AM

...
Demonstration: Two stage switches can be in either an on or off position. As an example, most switches built into the wall of a building are standardized so that UP is on and DOWN is off.
...

So I'll ask again here: Under what circumstances would the example be invalid based on your reading of the words? And how would you address how the rules work outside of the example? Even if the example is representative, it would not be all-encompassing.

You used the keyword "most" which implies that there are other options. I don't see that in the example we where talking about.

You are still ignoring keywords (example) while implying keywords which are not there (exception/most..) to make your reasoning plausible. While my interpretation works without these things. You just need to follow the text structure and the present keywords without implying other keywords.

edit: grammar..^^

Aracor

2020-11-05, 10:07 AM

You used the keyword "most" which implies that there are other options. I don't see that in the example we where talking about.

You are still ignoring keywords (example) while implying keywords which are not there (exception/most..) to make your reasoning plausible. While my interpretation works without these things. You just need to follow the text structure and the present keywords without implying other keywords.

edit: grammar..^^

My argument can be summed up very simply. I'm following the format in all of the other rules. If they added more rules at the end of an example in other sections, they made it a new paragraph. The fact that they didn't here suggests that my interpretation of the passage is correct - that the final sentence is still referencing the example.

But more than that, an example is BY DEFINITION narrower than the rule itself. It cannot be all-encompassing even if it is representative, because it is an example. There are by definition other potential examples, even if they're not specifically iterated.

So my question that you quoted in the previous post still stands.

Segev

2020-11-05, 10:36 AM

You are mixing up 2 different rules the wrong way here.

1. Same Effect with Differing Results:
This rule talks about how a series of the same spell (in this chase Polymorph) with varying effects is resolved and the last one trumps the others.

&
2. One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant:
Here we have different spells affecting each other (in this chase Polymorph being cast after Shapechage).

Conclusion:
Different spells will never suppress each other (unless otherwise mentioned^^). I think you mixed the two separate rules somehow into one. Happens to all of us ;)

edit: typoYou can interpret it that way, but I am not mixing up two rules. I am disagreeing with your premise that those are two distinct rules, and not one rule that is being specified and then clarified.

In fact, my position is that you are mixing up two rules.

Some effects have differing results (which leads to the default case where things simply do what they say they do)
Some effects' differing results create a conflict (which is resolved by the latest-applied effect trumping the conflicting parts of previously-applied effects).

Nowhere in the rules you've quoted does it specify that "one effect makes another irrelevant" is dependent on there being conflict between the two effects, so if you read that consistently with your prior reading of "multiple application of effects with differing results," fly is still "made irrelevant" by haste.

If you wish to argue that "made irrelevant" implies by its verbiage/verb choices that there has to be a conflict for relevancy to matter, I agree...but consistency in faithful attention to verb choice means you must pay the same homage to the verb "trump" earlier, which requires there to be something to trump: a conflict of two things where one needs priority.

Darg

2020-11-05, 11:13 AM

That rule being "the latest spell trumps the exact same spell if it provides a bonus or penalty."

I fixed it for you. I don't quite understand how the point isn't getting across at all after saying the exact same thing multiple times.

I would argue, that: "... the target need not be present when the curse is delivered." ,

And further down the page: "The target of the dying curse...",

This I take to mean that the dying person could indeed target a single person/creature.

They can. In that that case they provide a single stronger option. They aren't meant to stack by this example:

Each turn, the target has a 50% chance to act normally; otherwise, it takes no action.

Each turn, the subject has a 25% chance to act normally; otherwise, he takes no action.

4 instances of 50% action failure is much greater than 25% chance of failure and yet the book presents them as equals. What is more realistic, they intended a target to have a 6.25% chance to act or up to 4 targets receive the curse. See the issue when you allow penalties or bonuses to stack? It throws balance out the window.

But more than that, an example is BY DEFINITION narrower than the rule itself. It cannot be all-encompassing even if it is representative, because it is an example. There are by definition other potential examples, even if they're not specifically iterated.

That's the argument. Because an example isn't all-encompassing that means the proceding sentence isn't just referencing the preceding specific example by definition as you say.

You can interpret it that way, but I am not mixing up two rules. I am disagreeing with your premise that those are two distinct rules, and not one rule that is being specified and then clarified.

Your fallacy is then ignoring the other rules presented. Those two scenarios are then clarifying the previous scenarios. In your view it seems they are a chain. In that case you can't just not use the whole chain when making your argument otherwise it is inherently a flawed platform to stand on; forcing others to try and show you how it is flawed rather than continuing their position on the argument if they aren't just simply trying to "win."

Are you saying that the spell Flame Arrow should stack with itself? Allowing an archer to stack 1d6 fire damage on the same arrows?

Segev

2020-11-05, 11:39 AM

I fixed it for you. I don't quite understand how the point isn't getting across at all after saying the exact same thing multiple times.It never says that the second example is for a different rule. This is you reading into it. You certainly can, and I'm not faulting you for it, but you're wrong to say that it's the only way to read it. And it leads to spells not doing what they say they do, and to so MANY examples of spells being used contrary to the rule you read into this that it pretty much proves that, even if this is what the RAW say, it is not what the intended reading was.

Your fallacy is then ignoring the other rules presented.False. I have very, very explicitly gone over the RAW step by step, parsing them and their verbiage very precisely.

Those two scenarios are then clarifying the previous scenarios.There is only one "scenario" presented. Please provide evidence to the contrary.

In your view it seems they are a chain. In that case you can't just not use the whole chain when making your argument otherwise it is inherently a flawed platform to stand on; forcing others to try and show you how it is flawed rather than continuing their position on the argument if they aren't just simply trying to "win."If you read the rules as you wish to, then the conclusion that multiple spells trump each other is as valid as single spell trumping itself. At no point does it call out an exception for two different spells. Now, you can say, "But the default is that two different spells don't interfere," but then, so is the default for the same spell. Both cases show the trumping of conflicting effects rendering the prior conflicting effects irrelevant.

Are you saying that the spell Flame Arrow should stack with itself? Allowing an archer to stack 1d6 fire damage on the same arrows?Obviously not. That is covered by the same bonus applied by the same spell. Which is explicitly called out as not working in the section prior to it acknowledging that sometimes the same spell can apply different effects.

Gruftzwerg

2020-11-05, 12:24 PM

You can interpret it that way, but I am not mixing up two rules. I am disagreeing with your premise that those are two distinct rules, and not one rule that is being specified and then clarified.

In fact, my position is that you are mixing up two rules.

Some effects have differing results (which leads to the default case where things simply do what they say they do)
Some effects' differing results create a conflict (which is resolved by the latest-applied effect trumping the conflicting parts of previously-applied effects).

Nowhere in the rules you've quoted does it specify that "one effect makes another irrelevant" is dependent on there being conflict between the two effects, so if you read that consistently with your prior reading of "multiple application of effects with differing results," fly is still "made irrelevant" by haste.

If you wish to argue that "made irrelevant" implies by its verbiage/verb choices that there has to be a conflict for relevancy to matter, I agree...but consistency in faithful attention to verb choice means you must pay the same homage to the verb "trump" earlier, which requires there to be something to trump: a conflict of two things where one needs priority.
You are still ignoring the text structure here.

1: First, COMBINING MAGICAL EFFECTS starts to talk about how spells are normally resolved but that it is now going to present special chase scenarios where some kind of interaction is to expect

2: Because you ignore "1:", you falsely assume that "Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. " gives you the permission to resolve this scenario as normal. (remember that this section is talking about special spell interaction as main topic and not which cases are resolved normally)

3: But "The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. " is nothing more than "Same Effect with Differing Results:", written as full sentence without any instructions how to resolve it.

4: Than you are shown how it is resolved via an example. Later finished with a general explanation, repeating the same instructions given for the example in a more general way.

The sentences aren't there in a vacuum. You need to read it entirely and follow the text structure to get the big picture.

edit:
@Aracor

You'll find the answer to your question here in this post mainly. If you follow the text structure and given keywords (or their absence) it is clear that the example is meant representative and not as exception.
The text is talking about, I repeat.., situations with special interaction between spells/effects.

Why would they than name one of the subrules like a scenario where no special interaction is (from your point of view) and than show you within the same rule an exception where something does happen? If that would have been there intention, the rule would have been named "Same Effect With Differing Results Where One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant:", but that is not the chase.

Darg

2020-11-05, 01:36 PM

It never says that the second example is for a different rule. This is you reading into it. You certainly can, and I'm not faulting you for it, but you're wrong to say that it's the only way to read it. And it leads to spells not doing what they say they do, and to so MANY examples of spells being used contrary to the rule you read into this that it pretty much proves that, even if this is what the RAW say, it is not what the intended reading was.

You aren't making sense. As I have said, the rule that the entire section is pertaining to is the "Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves."

False. I have very, very explicitly gone over the RAW step by step, parsing them and their verbiage very precisely.

You have not. You have focused your entire position on a very specific part of the whole and making inferences on how it should be read.

There is only one "scenario" presented. Please provide evidence to the contrary.

I present the entire rule as stated by the PHB with five scenarios for one rule. The 3 rules are bolded with larger font to make it easy to see.

COMBINING MAGICAL 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. 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:

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 shapechangeeffect 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.

Spells with Opposite Effects: Spells with opposite effects apply normally, with all bonuses, penalties, or changes accruing in the order that they apply. Some spells negate or counter each other. This is a special effect that is noted in a spell’s description.

Instantaneous Effects: Two or more spells with instantaneous durations work cumulatively when they affect the same target. For example, when two fireballs strike a same creature, the target must attempt a saving throw against each fireball and takes damage from each according to the saving throws’ results. If a creature receives two cure light wounds spells in a single round, both work normally.

The 3 rules presented are: stacking effects, spells with opposite effects, and instantaneous effects. The stacking effects rule literally starts out saying that the same spell that provides bonuses or penalties does not usually stack with itself. I don't know about you but I can't find anywhere in the rule that it provides an exception to this. Please point out where this exception can be found. The same effect with different results scenario is telling you what happens when a spell cast multiple times with different outcomes interacts with itself.

If you read the rules as you wish to, then the conclusion that multiple spells trump each other is as valid as single spell trumping itself. At no point does it call out an exception for two different spells. Now, you can say, "But the default is that two different spells don't interfere," but then, so is the default for the same spell. Both cases show the trumping of conflicting effects rendering the prior conflicting effects irrelevant.

I don't understand how "same spell" could possibly mean "all/any spell." The "One effect Making Another Irrelevant" has the exact meaning that they are different effects/spells as in the example presented and as exactly presented in the opening statement of "Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant."

The "Same Effect With Differing Results" means that it it is talking about one spell being active on the target in multiple instances as presented in the example and as it literally states in the opening sentence: "The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once."

Maybe read it like a checklist rather than individualizing the pieces?

Obviously not. That is covered by the same bonus applied by the same spell. Which is explicitly called out as not working in the section prior to it acknowledging that sometimes the same spell can apply different effects.

It isn't specifically called out as a bonus or penalty. What separates Flame Arrow from Polymorph. The spell doesn't conflict itself. The benefit is that it provides extra and not bonus damage. There is no text stating that it can't stack with itself. What makes it different from Heroics or Elemental Immunity? Is it because it is damage? Why is this spell different from Animal Affinity as you brought up in the other thread. The rule you are referring to doesn't care if the effects are different, just that it is providing a bonus from the same spell. This rule doesn't say an effect; it says spell. How is Flame Arrow providing a bonus and Animal Affinity is not? How are the 3 other spells not providing a bonus. Polymorph is used as an example under the rule for bonuses not stacking themselves which is a very strong argument for Polymorph providing a bonus. Therefore it is subject to this rule and needs an explanation on how to resolve the multiple casts scenario; which is then provided.

Even the first scenario of "Different Bonus Names" says that different spells stack as long as the bonuses are untyped or have different type names. This is easily applied to the "One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant" scenario to conclude that it should be taken as a whole rather than pieces.

Aracor

2020-11-05, 03:52 PM

@Aracor

You'll find the answer to your question here in this post mainly. If you follow the text structure and given keywords (or their absence) it is clear that the example is meant representative and not as exception.
The text is talking about, I repeat.., situations with special interaction between spells/effects.

Why would they than name one of the subrules like a scenario where no special interaction is (from your point of view) and than show you within the same rule an exception where something does happen? If that would have been there intention, the rule would have been named "Same Effect With Differing Results Where One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant:", but that is not the chase.

But you're ignoring what I pointed out - the actual text structure.

Here is the format:Stacking Effects: Rules and description of rules. Example. Example.
More rules. Example. Clarification of example.

Different bonus names: Rules. Example. Clarification of example.
A new rule.

Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: Rules with details. Example. Clarification of example.

Same Effect with Differing Results: Rules. Example. Clarification of example. New rule with no clarification or example?

One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant: Rules. Example. Clarification of example. Second example.

Multiple Mental Control Effects: Rules. Example. Another rule. Example. Clarification of example. New rule. Clarification of the new rule.

In addition, you're still ignoring my question. Even if an example is representative, it is still by definition not all-encompassing.

We can also see different wording in the SRD that clarifies there should be exceptions. From the SRD:
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.

Under what circumstances would the example be invalid based on your reading of the words? And how would you address how the rules work outside of the example? Even if the example is representative, it would not be all-encompassing. Because again, by definition - an example is narrower than the entire rule itself.

sreservoir

2020-11-05, 03:53 PM

Aracor

2020-11-05, 04:31 PM

The 3 rules presented are: stacking effects, spells with opposite effects, and instantaneous effects. The stacking effects rule literally starts out saying that the same spell that provides bonuses or penalties does not usually stack with itself. I don't know about you but I can't find anywhere in the rule that it provides an exception to this. Please point out where this exception can be found. The same effect with different results scenario is telling you what happens when a spell cast multiple times with different outcomes interacts with itself.
Have you tried the rule where it says "Same Effect with Differing Results"? It LITERALLY SAYS RIGHT THERE! "The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once." That is indeed saying that it's an exception to the rule above.

If I replace some words and use exactly the same syntax: "The same liquid can produce varying effects if applied to the same pile of wood more than once." - Without having any more context, what would you expect to happen if you dumped three glasses of liquid labeled with this on the pile of wood one after the other?

The answer here is simple: I'd expect that the second one would do something different than the first one, and the third would do something different than the second.

The "Same Effect With Differing Results" means that it it is talking about one spell being active on the target in multiple instances as presented in the example and as it literally states in the opening sentence: "The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once."
And this is being stated as an exception to what was listed above, which you quoted earlier.

It isn't specifically called out as a bonus or penalty. What separates Flame Arrow from Polymorph. The spell doesn't conflict itself. The benefit is that it provides extra and not bonus damage. There is no text stating that it can't stack with itself. What makes it different from Heroics or Elemental Immunity? Is it because it is damage?
The fact that it doesn't generate differing results. It generates a single result. Extra damage on projectiles.

Why is this spell different from Animal Affinity as you brought up in the other thread. The rule you are referring to doesn't care if the effects are different, just that it is providing a bonus from the same spell. This rule doesn't say an effect; it says spell. How is Flame Arrow providing a bonus and Animal Affinity is not? How are the 3 other spells not providing a bonus. Polymorph is used as an example under the rule for bonuses not stacking themselves which is a very strong argument for Polymorph providing a bonus. Therefore it is subject to this rule and needs an explanation on how to resolve the multiple casts scenario; which is then provided.

Animal Affinity is providing a bonus. I actually don't see any reason you can't cast it six times to get six different effects. It saves on PP, but it does end up costing a lot more actions. And no, polymorph doesn't provide a bonus. It creates an effect. That's why it's under this subheading.

And as people have pointed out multiple times: A single recipient can only have one form in any given situation. That's why the clarification for the example is provided.

Darg

2020-11-05, 05:28 PM

Carefully familiarize yourself with what "stacking" means (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#stacking), then.

I have. I am also familiar that Modifiers is the term being explained. Just scroll up a little. It isn't defining "stacking." It is telling you that modifiers stack if they are from different sources AND are of different types. A modifier is A bonus or penalty to a die roll. Bull's Strength doesn't give you a modifier to strength; it gives you a bonus to strength.

Have you tried the rule where it says "Same Effect with Differing Results"? It LITERALLY SAYS RIGHT THERE! "The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once." That is indeed saying that it's an exception to the rule above.

If I replace some words and use exactly the same syntax: "The same liquid can produce varying effects if applied to the same pile of wood more than once." - Without having any more context, what would you expect to happen if you dumped three glasses of liquid labeled with this on the pile of wood one after the other?

The answer here is simple: I'd expect that the second one would do something different than the first one, and the third would do something different than the second.

You are choosing not to read the section as a whole. You are choosing not to see that the first sentence is not stating an exception, but a situation. You are choosing to not see polymorph as AN example. You are choosing not to apply the conclusion of the paragraph to the scenario. Instead you are pulling "it's an exception" out of thin air because that is what you want to see. It doesn't say it is an exception; there is no contextual implication that it's an exception; there is no exception.

The fact that it doesn't generate differing results. It generates a single result. Extra damage on projectiles.

And? It's not applying a bonus modifier so it's not a bonus to a damage roll. Therefore it can stack with itself when using your rules. Bonus damage is simply bonus damage. Show me exactly where I am wrong so I can easily dismantle your argument for otherwise.

Animal Affinity is providing a bonus. I actually don't see any reason you can't cast it six times to get six different effects. It saves on PP, but it does end up costing a lot more actions. And no, polymorph doesn't provide a bonus. It creates an effect. That's why it's under this subheading.

This is getting a little exasperating.

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

"Usually" implies extenuating circumstances. Either they stack all the time or something has to call out when they do. Nothing below the quote says it does, and the spell itself doesn't say it can. So either this rule voids itself out, or Animal Affinity can't stack with itself because it is the same source. You can't still follow this rule while allowing Animal Affinity to stack with itself without house ruling it.

And as people have pointed out multiple times: A single recipient can only have one form in any given situation. That's why the clarification for the example is provided.

I want to expand on this a little. So why can't they have multiple forms at once? There is no logical basis for it. D&D is a conceptual game after all. If it's allowed by the rules it's allowed to be done by default. Conceptually speaking it isn't an unreal scenario that the creature in question could be all 3 creatures at once. If we apply the paragraph in question understanding that and that polymorph was simply an example, it really isn't hard to understand that the paragraph was applying itself to all scenarios where "the same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once."

ciopo

2020-11-05, 05:40 PM

Point of order, per the srd (wh9le section already quoted), the stacking rules pertains magical effects, not spells themself. So the name/source of what causes the specific magicial effect should be irrelevant to the raws that governs adjudicating conflicts of magical effects?

Taking a left field approach, why would {being affected by something that grants ice resist} supress a (su) granted {resistance other than ice} be it from a class or race or template or whatnot?

Not that I know if {something resistance} is (su) or (ex) mind you, but I'm having a thought on it, the rules says effect, not spell. The srd ones at least

A somewhat different example, phb2 shapeshift variant druids have the (su) shapeshift ability that, among other things, can grant some feats at certain levels, such as mobility at level 4 when in predator form

Some of you people stance is that a shapeshift druid of at least 4th level that got affected by heroics to gain {feat other than mobility} would lose that feat if he shifted to his predator form?

I don't see it, but I suppose that would be your position? On... the basis that the effect is a generic (grants *a* feat) instead of (grants *this* feat)?

Could I override any {shapechange that among other things grants (energy resist to something)} with a casting of resist energy (other than the one granted by shapechange)?

sreservoir

2020-11-05, 06:03 PM

I have. I am also familiar that Modifiers is the term being explained. Just scroll up a little. It isn't defining "stacking." It is telling you that modifiers stack if they are from different sources AND are of different types. A modifier is A bonus or penalty to a die roll. Bull's Strength doesn't give you a modifier to strength; it gives you a bonus to strength.

The text defines bonus and penalty as modifiers. The only effects to which Stacking Effects can apply are ones that provide bonuses or penalties.

It is also saying that stack means combine for a cumulative effect.

If there's no combination for cumulative effect there is no stacking.

Darg

2020-11-05, 06:16 PM

sreservoir

2020-11-05, 06:19 PM

No one in this thread is arguing that different sources don't stack. So there is no conflict in your post to actually comment on. The argument all comes down to whether a spell/effect can stack with itself if the outcome is different even though the source is the same. You cast the Energy Resistance spell 3 times to give you bonus Acid resist, Fire resist, and Cold resist in that order. I argue that because it gives you a bonus to your resistance attribute that the spell doesn't stack and you only benefit from the most recent cast as the rules spell out in the PHB.

Is this also your resolution to the bestow curse situation? Blindness/deafness?

Darg

2020-11-05, 06:21 PM

The text defines bonus and penalty as modifiers. The only effects to which Stacking Effects can apply are ones that provide bonuses or penalties.

It is also saying that stack means combine for a cumulative effect.

If there's no combination for cumulative effect there is no stacking.

What? Where in the world does it say that? I can't even argue because there is a fundamental lack of understanding the syntax of it.

Is this also your resolution to the bestow curse situation? Blindness/deafness?

Of course. It's a solid argument and no one is apparently refuting the basis of the argument preferring to point to possible interpretations of a sentence or apply a proceeding statement to a preceding situation.

ciopo

2020-11-05, 06:28 PM

I find it somewhat funny that "in the future" (5e) whatever wipeout that made crafting magical items a lost art also made people forget that they could actually enhance more than one ability score at the same time with multille casts of (spell that used to be split in 6 different ones because for some reason we didn't want the cleric to be able to enhance the wizard intellect).

It was like (magic researched gathered around) "hey these six spells looks similar to each other! This part is the same in all of them! But this other part changes! I bet I could make this modular and be able to decide what aspect of a person to enhance instead of preparing different spells for different abilities!"
"Dude noooooooo , don't you remember ages ago (ad&d) when we could cast resist fire and resist acid on ourselves and be resistant to both! But then some smartass had to go and invent resist energy amd now we can have only one resistance at a time!

Edit: merging doublepost

No one in this thread is arguing that different sources don't stack. So there is no conflict in your post to actually comment on. The argument all comes down to whether a spell/effect can stack with itself if the outcome is different even though the source is the same. You cast the Energy Resistance spell 3 times to give you bonus Acid resist, Fire resist, and Cold resist in that order. I argue that because it gives you a bonus to your resistance attribute that the spell doesn't stack and you only benefit from the most recent cast as the rules spell out in the PHB.

But is the source the same? Are drinking two potions of different resistances the same source? They are two different finite object with two different names with two different effects? Is the definition of source " spell with name X" ? Is it "the cause of the effect"? I'm on camp "source is the cause of effect", two casting of (spell with name X) on the same target, are two sources to me, that may or may not stack depending on the effect generated as decided by the rules pertaining effects

I'd like to point out again that ehnance wild shape calls out that it's allowed to stack eith itself when selecting a different effect. That can be read as an exception to the rules and that is a valid reading. That can also be read as a reminder/clarification to the rules as to preemptively answer the "can I stack this!?" The druid wiuld inevitably ask which is also a valid reading.

I'd like to point out that energy immunity has rule text that can be interpreted as "two casts of spells that grants energy resistance/immunity will stack if they target different energy types", apparently not a third one however( ? )

Here have a curveball: is bull's strength a polymorph effect?

I'm just having fun, wordfights are fun ^^ Nuances are fun!

sreservoir

2020-11-05, 08:00 PM

What? Where in the world does it say that? I can't even argue because there is a fundamental lack of understanding the syntax of it.

"stack (combine for a cumulative effect)"

Max Caysey

2020-11-05, 09:13 PM

They can. In that that case they provide a single stronger option.

Where specifically does it say that? Because I've reread the page and I cant see that it actually says that. It might seem logical to think that, but it does not actually make that distinction. Ergo, you must be able to layer multiple bestow curses or greater curses on one single target, resulting in multiple effects...

Aracor

2020-11-05, 09:24 PM

You are choosing not to read the section as a whole. You are choosing not to see that the first sentence is not stating an exception, but a situation. You are choosing to not see polymorph as AN example. You are choosing not to apply the conclusion of the paragraph to the scenario. Instead you are pulling "it's an exception" out of thin air because that is what you want to see. It doesn't say it is an exception; there is no contextual implication that it's an exception; there is no exception.

I'm reading the section as a whole. As my previous post points out, the format of every section is Rule (sometimes with clarifications or context), followed by example, and clarification of the example. If it makes a new rule, it starts a new paragraph. Example: See Different Bonus Names. This means that the entire rule is the first sentence.

And? It's not applying a bonus modifier so it's not a bonus to a damage roll. Therefore it can stack with itself when using your rules. Bonus damage is simply bonus damage. Show me exactly where I am wrong so I can easily dismantle your argument for otherwise.

No, it can't stack with itself for a number of reasons. Reason #1: It specifically says in the spell itself. Reason #2: Spells need to create a differing effect to create a situation where they can be cast multiple times on the same recipient and create differing effects.

"Usually" implies extenuating circumstances. Either they stack all the time or something has to call out when they do. Nothing below the quote says it does, and the spell itself doesn't say it can. So either this rule voids itself out, or Animal Affinity can't stack with itself because it is the same source. You can't still follow this rule while allowing Animal Affinity to stack with itself without house ruling it.

Why not? There are already examples explicitly mentioned here when the same spell cast multiple times affects the recipient multiple times: The Ray of Enfeeblement example directly above the rule we're talking about. They both affect the target, but they overlap and so only the highest penalty applies. But if the highest one is dispelled, the lower one is still there. That example doesn't even say the lesser one is suppressed.

I want to expand on this a little. So why can't they have multiple forms at once? There is no logical basis for it. D&D is a conceptual game after all. If it's allowed by the rules it's allowed to be done by default. Conceptually speaking it isn't an unreal scenario that the creature in question could be all 3 creatures at once. If we apply the paragraph in question understanding that and that polymorph was simply an example, it really isn't hard to understand that the paragraph was applying itself to all scenarios where "the same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once."

Did you really just ask why a single creature can't be a lion and a mouse at the same time? Please explain conceptually how this would work for me, because I'm having trouble with it. The simple answer is that it's physically impossible. Why? Let's say (for example) a creature was simultaneously a house cat and an elephant. Can it walk through a cat door without damaging it? Why or why not?

Gruftzwerg

2020-11-06, 12:19 AM

But you're ignoring what I pointed out - the actual text structure.

Here is the format:Stacking Effects: Rules and description of rules. Example. Example.
More rules. Example. Clarification of example.

Different bonus names: Rules. Example. Clarification of example.
A new rule.

Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: Rules with details. Example. Clarification of example.

Same Effect with Differing Results: Rules. Example. Clarification of example. New rule with no clarification or example?

One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant: Rules. Example. Clarification of example. Second example.

Multiple Mental Control Effects: Rules. Example. Another rule. Example. Clarification of example. New rule. Clarification of the new rule.

In addition, you're still ignoring my question. Even if an example is representative, it is still by definition not all-encompassing.

We can also see different wording in the SRD that clarifies there should be exceptions. From the SRD:

Under what circumstances would the example be invalid based on your reading of the words? And how would you address how the rules work outside of the example? Even if the example is representative, it would not be all-encompassing. Because again, by definition - an example is narrower than the entire rule itself.

An interesting reading format you are using there. It just ignores the rest of the layout and leaves a "New rule with no clarification or example?" which doesn't get its own category with a separate name as it would deserve it normally.

Sorry, I don't see how you are following the given text format. You just juggle around with the format as it pleases for your interpretation without caring how the rest of the format looks like. You even go so far to split a single paragraph rule into two rules (which ain't the given format nor is it a good/normal way to present different rules).

- your question about how the "example" part works:
"Usually" means "the most common result to expect" = which translates in 3.5 into a general rule + pointing out that there are exceptions to expect (which are in 3.5 explicitly called out in the ability that allows it). There are several spells who call out that they can be stacked with themselves e.g. Create Magic Tattoo).
So you have to expect a general rule with the use of "usually" and not the exception (which are primary handled by the rules covering the ability/effect/whatsoever which allows for the exception and calls it out).

Stop destroying the layout/format and try to get a feeling for keywords like "example" and "usually" and how they work (not sole in 3.5 but almost everywhere in real life). If an example is not representative, there is always a keyword indicating that. But here we have the opposite. "Usually" talks about the representative side of a topic. The text doesn't say "unusually" which would have been an indicator to expect the exception afterwards. Really.. try to read some carefully please.

edit: wording..

ciopo

2020-11-06, 01:42 AM

Darg

2020-11-06, 01:45 AM

Where specifically does it say that? Because I've reread the page and I cant see that it actually says that. It might seem logical to think that, but it does not actually make that distinction. Ergo, you must be able to layer multiple bestow curses or greater curses on one single target, resulting in multiple effects...

Table 2-3 shows the different combinations you could make. BoVD doesn't have to say they don't stack as the rule in the PHB says that bestow curse wouldn't stack with itself.

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

Bestow Curse is a spell and it provides a penalty for all 4. Therefore it does not stack with itself unless there is an exception I don't know about.

But is the source the same? Are drinking two potions of different resistances the same source? They are two different finite object with two different names with two different effects? Is the definition of source " spell with name X" ? Is it "the cause of the effect"? I'm on camp "source is the cause of effect", two casting of (spell with name X) on the same target, are two sources to me, that may or may not stack depending on the effect generated as decided by the rules pertaining effects

The rule says "spell" and potions are a duplicates of the spells used to make them which make them exactly the same. If it falls under the quote above it doesn't stack.

I'd like to point out again that ehnance wild shape calls out that it's allowed to stack eith itself when selecting a different effect. That can be read as an exception to the rules and that is a valid reading. That can also be read as a reminder/clarification to the rules as to preemptively answer the "can I stack this!?" The druid wiuld inevitably ask which is also a valid reading.

The rule above mentions that more often than not spells like this do not stack with themselves. As the majority of spells do not stack with themselves, logically they would express when spells would stack with themselves. Sadly, the explanation for the rule does not mention that, but it does go on to express what happens when bonuses and penalties are applied multiple times on a single target. As the specific rule of not stacking trumps the general rule of stacking enhance wild shape is making an exception as there is no specific rule that trumps the no stacking rule. At the vary least no one has brought this rule forth from whatever obscure source it is.

I'd like to point out that energy immunity has rule text that can be interpreted as "two casts of spells that grants energy resistance/immunity will stack if they target different energy types", apparently not a third one however( ? )

The Draconomicon had to change the spell because the original wording didn't allow the other spells to actually absorb any damage: "Note: Energy immunity overlaps protection from energy and resist energy. So long as energy immunity is in effect, the other spells absorb no damage." At least it explains what overlapping does for protection from energy.

Here have a curveball: is bull's strength a polymorph effect?

I'm just having fun, wordfights are fun ^^ Nuances are fun!

If you want to know something even more fun, polymorph isn't even a polymorph effect. You either use the new subschool rules, ignore them, or combine them. If you use them polymorph becomes extremely lame. If you ignore them, the new polymorph spells aren't so crappy. If you make the new spells use the rules and keep older spells untouched you invalidated all the new spells.

Since there was no "polymorph" effect prior to the introduction of the subschool and the subschool specifically mentions changing shape, bull's strength is not a polymorph spell.

Darg

2020-11-06, 02:14 AM

I'm reading the section as a whole. As my previous post points out, the format of every section is Rule (sometimes with clarifications or context), followed by example, and clarification of the example. If it makes a new rule, it starts a new paragraph. Example: See Different Bonus Names. This means that the entire rule is the first sentence.

There are 2 places where that statement isn't true. In the first paragraph and the last under multiple mental controlling effects. By definition your claim is false.

No, it can't stack with itself for a number of reasons. Reason #1: It specifically says in the spell itself. Reason #2: Spells need to create a differing effect to create a situation where they can be cast multiple times on the same recipient and create differing effects.

Flame arrow says nothing about not stacking with itself: "You turn ammunition (such as arrows, bolts, shuriken, and stones) into fiery projectiles. Each piece of ammunition deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage to any target it hits. A flaming projectile can easily ignite a flammable object or structure, but it won’t ignite a creature it strikes." What rule is the basis for your second reason? The general rule says that spells usually work as described so we need a reason for to not work as described.

Why not? There are already examples explicitly mentioned here when the same spell cast multiple times affects the recipient multiple times: The Ray of Enfeeblement example directly above the rule we're talking about. They both affect the target, but they overlap and so only the highest penalty applies. But if the highest one is dispelled, the lower one is still there. That example doesn't even say the lesser one is suppressed.

This rule is pretty explicit: " Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves." None of the effects are suppressed. The term WotC likes to use is "irrelevant."

Did you really just ask why a single creature can't be a lion and a mouse at the same time? Please explain conceptually how this would work for me, because I'm having trouble with it. The simple answer is that it's physically impossible. Why? Let's say (for example) a creature was simultaneously a house cat and an elephant. Can it walk through a cat door without damaging it? Why or why not?

Concepts don't have to be logical or follow the laws of physics. Ever heard of the Penrose Stairs? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_stairs) The thought experiment was explaining that because the rule didn't say anything about conflicts being the facilitator of the irrelevancy of the effects the last two sentences pertain to the rule as a whole. Interesting to note is that if they don't you are saying it is a separate rule and should be a new paragraph. It isn't a new paragraph.

ciopo

2020-11-06, 07:00 AM

Aracor

2020-11-06, 08:44 AM

Well, I can think of more than one ruling that would allow multiple polymorph effects to stack.

Recipient being able to switch between effects at will
Recipient having to pick which one to apply of those that says "your X becomes Y" when they are in conflict
All (ex) and (su) being applied except for conflicting cases.

It boils down to break the polymorph in it's component partI'm not asking about polymorph effects stacking though. I'm asking about how you can have more than one form AT THE SAME TIME, because that's what Darg claimed should be possible.

Aracor

2020-11-06, 08:54 AM

There are 2 places where that statement isn't true. In the first paragraph and the last under multiple mental controlling effects. By definition your claim is false.Okay, you're right. There are a few places where my claim is false, but it's still generally true.

In addition, when they add a new rule, they also nearly all the time add an example to clarify it. Based on BOTH of these generalities, it looks like sentence #4 is still clarifying the example.

Flame arrow says nothing about not stacking with itself: "You turn ammunition (such as arrows, bolts, shuriken, and stones) into fiery projectiles. Each piece of ammunition deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage to any target it hits. A flaming projectile can easily ignite a flammable object or structure, but it won’t ignite a creature it strikes." What rule is the basis for your second reason? The general rule says that spells usually work as described so we need a reason for to not work as described.

What would you can an additional 1d6 points of fire damage if it's not a bonus to damage rolls?

This rule is pretty explicit: " Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves." None of the effects are suppressed. The term WotC likes to use is "irrelevant."

Exactly. Irrelevant is not the same thing as suppressed. Irrelevant is appropriate to the example of Polymorph, because a creature can only have one form. Immunity to Fire is not irrelevant when a new effect is Immunity to Acid. Just like getting the Cleave feat is not irrelevant when getting the Martial Study feat.

Concepts don't have to be logical or follow the laws of physics. Ever heard of the Penrose Stairs? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_stairs) The thought experiment was explaining that because the rule didn't say anything about conflicts being the facilitator of the irrelevancy of the effects the last two sentences pertain to the rule as a whole. Interesting to note is that if they don't you are saying it is a separate rule and should be a new paragraph. It isn't a new paragraph.

That still doesn't explain to me conceptually how having two different forms at once would work, whether logical or not. Can the cat/elephant go through a cat door without damaging it? Why or why not?

Pulling this from earlier:
You are choosing not to read the section as a whole. You are choosing not to see that the first sentence is not stating an exception, but a situation. You are choosing to not see polymorph as AN example. You are choosing not to apply the conclusion of the paragraph to the scenario. Instead you are pulling "it's an exception" out of thin air because that is what you want to see. It doesn't say it is an exception; there is no contextual implication that it's an exception; there is no exception.

I AM reading the section as a whole based on the writing style of previous sections. Rule. Example. Clarification of example. If the final sentence was intended to be another rule, it would be followed by another example.

I'm not pulling "It's an exception" out of thin air. I'm not saying it's an exception. I'm saying it's an example. An example is by definition narrower than the rule itself. I still don't understand why so many people don't understand that the first sentence by itself is instruction.

Aracor

2020-11-06, 09:01 AM

An interesting reading format you are using there. It just ignores the rest of the layout and leaves a "New rule with no clarification or example?" which doesn't get its own category with a separate name as it would deserve it normally.

Sorry, I don't see how you are following the given text format. You just juggle around with the format as it pleases for your interpretation without caring how the rest of the format looks like. You even go so far to split a single paragraph rule into two rules (which ain't the given format nor is it a good/normal way to present different rules).

Sorry, I put that in bold because I'm pointing out that it doesn't make sense to be there like that. I'm still a proponent of it being further description and clarification relating to the example. Because both in the writing style of the author for this section, AND grammatically, it makes more sense that way.

- your question about how the "example" part works:
"Usually" means "the most common result to expect" = which translates in 3.5 into a general rule + pointing out that there are exceptions to expect (which are in 3.5 explicitly called out in the ability that allows it). There are several spells who call out that they can be stacked with themselves e.g. Create Magic Tattoo).
So you have to expect a general rule with the use of "usually" and not the exception (which are primary handled by the rules covering the ability/effect/whatsoever which allows for the exception and calls it out).

So you're contending that the same spells creating different effects is only allowed on spells that explicitly state it's allowed?

Stop destroying the layout/format and try to get a feeling for keywords like "example" and "usually" and how they work (not sole in 3.5 but almost everywhere in real life). If an example is not representative, there is always a keyword indicating that. But here we have the opposite. "Usually" talks about the representative side of a topic. The text doesn't say "unusually" which would have been an indicator to expect the exception afterwards. Really.. try to read some carefully please.

edit: wording..

Then please, show me your reading of the layout format that I'm "destroying" so I can understand where you're coming from. Because as of right now, you're claiming that I'm destroying it without offering a counter-argument other than "I'm wrong".

Gruftzwerg

2020-11-06, 10:32 AM

What about an armor with the fire resistance quality? The crafting requires the casting of resist energy.

Therefore, the wearer can't benefit from castings of resist energy (other than fire) anymore? Or we can't inbue an armor with two different resistances?

Sorry for the short answer but I'm on lunch break, little time and phonetyping is bleh

While crafting makes use of spells, there is no crafting rule that all the magic items work like the spell being used for crafting. While there are magic items who are similar or identical to the spell being used, it is not a general concept.

Crafting potions/scrolls/wands.. on the other hand have explicit ruling that they work as the spell being cast (with limitations to Clvl and bla..).

So magic item effects doesn't fall under the rule, because:

Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can
Unless the magic item explicitly calls out that it works the same as the spell X, magic items are unaffected by this rule.

_______________________________________________

Sorry, I put that in bold because I'm pointing out that it doesn't make sense to be there like that. I'm still a proponent of it being further description and clarification relating to the example. Because both in the writing style of the author for this section, AND grammatically, it makes more sense that way.
I can return the argument. Imho your reading ignores the style/format of the author and is grammatically not correct.

So you're contending that the same spells creating different effects is only allowed on spells that explicitly state it's allowed?
Yes, you may only stack the same spell (doesn't matter if same or different effect) only if the spell says so.

Then please, show me your reading of the layout format that I'm "destroying" so I can understand where you're coming from. Because as of right now, you're claiming that I'm destroying it without offering a counter-argument other than "I'm wrong".

I have explained it in post #22 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24785995&postcount=22) and repeated it in post 52 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24788018&postcount=52) for Segev.

Aracor

2020-11-06, 11:52 AM

You are still ignoring the text structure here.

1: First, COMBINING MAGICAL EFFECTS starts to talk about how spells are normally resolved but that it is now going to present special chase scenarios where some kind of interaction is to expect But these are still listed as general rules.

2: Because you ignore "1:", you falsely assume that "Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. " gives you the permission to resolve this scenario as normal. (remember that this section is talking about special spell interaction as main topic and not which cases are resolved normally)Not ignoring 1. Treating it with the deference that it deserves.

3: But "The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. " is nothing more than "Same Effect with Differing Results:", written as full sentence without any instructions how to resolve it.It is instructions. I don't understand why you can't see it. It is setting expectations. See my wood pile example again.

Think of it this way: If we had no context, does this sentence tell me how to resolve effects? YES! It gives permission for the same spell to produce different effects. As opposed to the more general rules above that don't allow the same result to affect a creature multiple times.

4: Than you are shown how it is resolved via an example. Later finished with a general explanation, repeating the same instructions given for the example in a more general way.

The sentences aren't there in a vacuum. You need to read it entirely and follow the text structure to get the big picture. But you are still treating an example as all-encompassing, which is still by definition AN EXAMPLE. That means it is not treated as all-encompassing. I WILL acknowledge that there's no real instruction here as to exactly how representative the example is.

But the nature of the example specifically defines the other effects as irrelevant, which seems LESS representative because of the nature of the example. As pointed out many times, it is impossible to be a cat and an elephant at the same time. Given that it is absolutely possible for a recipient to have multiple energy resistances or multiple feats at the same time, there are significant differences between the example as stated and the spells we're talking about.

You're discounting the differences between the example as stated and the spells as we've outlined them and giving the example more weight than it deserves based upon your belief that the example MUST be representative.

Darg

2020-11-06, 11:54 AM

Darg

2020-11-06, 12:21 PM

I'm not asking about polymorph effects stacking though. I'm asking about how you can have more than one form AT THE SAME TIME, because that's what Darg claimed should be possible.

As I said concepts are possibly impossible. The rules state that polymorph makes irrelevant the previous cast even though there is no conflict over gaining extraordinary special attacks. So it's not just the conflicts that are made irrelevant as has been used as the argument for that specific interpretation making it invalid as is.

Okay, you're right. There are a few places where my claim is false, but it's still generally true.

In addition, when they add a new rule, they also nearly all the time add an example to clarify it. Based on BOTH of these generalities, it looks like sentence #4 is still clarifying the example.

Making arbitrary exceptions doesn't reinforce your point.

What would you can an additional 1d6 points of fire damage if it's not a bonus to damage rolls?

A damage roll itself. I mean you are rolling for the damage.

Exactly. Irrelevant is not the same thing as suppressed. Irrelevant is appropriate to the example of Polymorph, because a creature can only have one form. Immunity to Fire is not irrelevant when a new effect is Immunity to Acid. Just like getting the Cleave feat is not irrelevant when getting the Martial Study feat.

First, feats are not magical unless otherwise specified. Second, my above example still stands. Polymorph gives you the extraordinary special attacks and that doesn't conflict with other castings. Unless you can find a reason that they do conflict, the conflict argument lost its foundation.

ciopo

2020-11-06, 12:39 PM

First, item enhancements are enhancement bonuses. Second, item enhancement special abilities are special abilities not spells as mentioned in the magic items sections. Third, these special abilities mention when they are the spell or a specific effect making it easy to identify when they wouldn't stack.

But the crafter is casting a resist energy on the armor to inbue it with the fire resistance property, therefore the armor can't be inbued with a ice resistance too, because it can't receive the benefit of multiple resist energy casting?

I'd make an argument that since armor special qualities are suppressed in anti magic fields , they are qualified as (su) otherwise they would keep working, and therefore cannot stack with {spell that granted the (su) special ability}.

Obviously so, if you have a fire resistance armor but cast resist energy (fire) on yourself, the stacking rules comes in and only the bigger of the two gets applied

if you argue that casting resist energy (ice) overrides resist energy (fire), then it should also override the (su) fire resistance special ability of the armor, because the source of that enhancement was the casting of resist energy (fire)

I'm not asking about polymorph effects stacking though. I'm asking about how you can have more than one form AT THE SAME TIME, because that's what Darg claimed should be possible.

you could be a quantum entity :P

unseenmage

2020-11-06, 12:55 PM

I'm not asking about polymorph effects stacking though. I'm asking about how you can have more than one form AT THE SAME TIME, because that's what Darg claimed should be possible.

...
you could be a quantum entity :P
Or be a Dvati. :smallbiggrin:

Gruftzwerg

2020-11-06, 01:46 PM

But these are still listed as general rules.

Not ignoring 1. Treating it with the deference that it deserves.
You are ignoring it.
The very first sentence sets the global rule:

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.
While the last sentence maces it clear that the upcoming chases will be ruled different from the global rule:

Several other general rules apply when spells or magical effects operate in the same place:
other means, that the now coming rules will not default to the global rules that has been set. So, Non of the upcoming rules will default to "spells works as described" past this point anymore! And you are ignoring it all the way long and come to wrong conclusion because of this.

It is instructions. I don't understand why you can't see it. It is setting expectations.
It is not. It only describes the scenario when you have to apply the rule. Nothing implies how these effects that are cast on the same target has to resolve. And no, as said, you may not default to regular spell resolve cause that has been denied for this section by the last entry sentence.
All it does is to tell you that you might have this situation.

Lets try it the other way around. We all know that Enlarge Person doesn't stack (since it even explicitly calls it out as reminder). But nothing stops you from applying the "same spell with the same effect on the same target". I can say "I can cast the same spell with the same effect on the same target". Nothing stops me from that. But how it will resolve and if it makes any difference does stand in other rules which we have. So, the first sentence does nothing more than tell you the scenario when this rule paragraph (with a single rule not 2 different rules with only 1 correct name for the rule..) is to be used (scenario/circumstances). When you explain a rule, you should normally start your explanation with the "when does this rule apply" part.

Think of it this way: If we had no context, does this sentence tell me how to resolve effects? YES! It gives permission for the same spell to produce different effects. As opposed to the more general rules above that don't allow the same result to affect a creature multiple times.
No for the reason I already said above.

But you are still treating an example as all-encompassing, which is still by definition AN EXAMPLE. That means it is not treated as all-encompassing. I WILL acknowledge that there's no real instruction here as to exactly how representative the example is.
Which the sole example of a paragraph should be unless the is an indicating keyword present to assume otherwise (like exception, sometimes, rarely...). And the lack of real instruction makes your kind of text structure flow inconsistent and broken. And you just ignore it, while there are explanations who don't have these problems.

But the nature of the example specifically defines the other effects as irrelevant, which seems LESS representative because of the nature of the example. As pointed out many times, it is impossible to be a cat and an elephant at the same time. Given that it is absolutely possible for a recipient to have multiple energy resistances or multiple feats at the same time, there are significant differences between the example as stated and the spells we're talking about.
Nothing in the name of the rule of the paragraph implies a conflict of this kind. How are you interpreting this into "Same Effect with Differing Results"? I repeat, it is not named "Same Effect With Differing Results Where One Effect Makes the Other Irrelevant" (a more fitting name for your interpretation).

You're discounting the differences between the example as stated and the spells as we've outlined them and giving the example more weight than it deserves based upon your belief that the example MUST be representative.
I have given you enough info why it must be representative, you just keep ignoring them straight.

edit: typo & corrected a quote that was broken..^^

Darg

2020-11-06, 01:52 PM

if you argue that casting resist energy (ice) overrides resist energy (fire), then it should also override the (su) fire resistance special ability of the armor, because the source of that enhancement was the casting of resist energy (fire)

The enhancement special ability is its own special ability with its own rules just like how a supernatural ability has its own rules. An item effect can be suppressed by a dispel effect unlike a supernatural ability as an example.

The spell being cast is a requirement for the magical item to be created. The spell isn't the source of the effect, but an ingredient for the effect. If you want to get logical, the spell is cast on the item not the recipient so the recipient would get the effect of the special ability not the spell. The resistance to energy ability does not stack with the resistance a spell provides as the ability entry states. Plus, because the special abilities are their own individual effect which means the different types stack with each other.

Interestingly enough, if you don't use the spell compendium, Ex resist actually stacks with Su resist because it only says it doesn't stack with spells. Rules compendium makes it so the same type doesn't stack period.

Aracor

2020-11-06, 03:48 PM

As I said concepts are possibly impossible. The rules state that polymorph makes irrelevant the previous cast even though there is no conflict over gaining extraordinary special attacks. So it's not just the conflicts that are made irrelevant as has been used as the argument for that specific interpretation making it invalid as is.
Do you understand what you just said there and how ridiculous it sounds? Polymorph doesn't conflict with itself because you can gain extraordinary special attacks when you polymorph! There is conflict here because any given THING can only have one form. Even the Master Transmogrifist (which explicitly DOES allow mixing of forms with Polymorph) doesn't take away the physical limitation that you can only have one form. It may be a mix, but it's still a single form at any given time.

Making arbitrary exceptions doesn't reinforce your point.
And you claiming that I'm wrong doesn't prove yours. My exceptions aren't arbitrary, they're logical based on the syntax of each individual section of this chapter. What's your point? Honestly at this point, it seems very likely that neither of us are going to convince the other. I'll even admit that I can understand why you read it the way you do. I just don't agree with it.

A damage roll itself. I mean you are rolling for the damage.
So damage beyond the weapon itself isn't bonus damage? You're really reaching here. Even the damage bonus that strength applies to a melee or thrown weapon is defined as bonus damage. I don't see how I can take this particular claim as anything other than ridiculous.

First, feats are not magical unless otherwise specified. Second, my above example still stands. Polymorph gives you the extraordinary special attacks and that doesn't conflict with other castings. Unless you can find a reason that they do conflict, the conflict argument lost its foundation.
Your above example does NOT stand. A polymorphed creature gains the extraordinary special attacks of a form BECAUSE it takes that form. You're trying to put the cart before the horse. So no, the conflict in the example is by virtue of the example. You haven't successfully proven otherwise.

Segev

2020-11-06, 03:56 PM

I stand by my analysis of the rules. I do not, however, expect to persuade anybody who has determined to the contrary.

I think the real benefit, here, is for both sides to be visible to DMs who want to make a decision for their own games. I also think that most DMs will decide on something they feel is "balanced" for their own games, regardless of consistency or the RAW. But it's still good to have the analysis here.

Assuming we're talking about DM rulings/house rules, is it broken to have multiple spell effects in place at the same time? Is it broken to have the same spell apply multiple times as long as it's different effects? I don't actually think so. It's still paying for a thing, and it's not piling large numbers on top of each other.

Melcar

2020-11-06, 03:57 PM

But the crafter is casting a resist energy on the armor to inbue it with the fire resistance property, therefore the armor can't be inbued with a ice resistance too, because it can't receive the benefit of multiple resist energy casting?

I'd make an argument that since armor special qualities are suppressed in anti magic fields , they are qualified as (su) otherwise they would keep working, and therefore cannot stack with {spell that granted the (su) special ability}.

Obviously so, if you have a fire resistance armor but cast resist energy (fire) on yourself, the stacking rules comes in and only the bigger of the two gets applied

if you argue that casting resist energy (ice) overrides resist energy (fire), then it should also override the (su) fire resistance special ability of the armor, because the source of that enhancement was the casting of resist energy (fire)

you could be a quantum entity :P

Indeed... how else would Universal Energy Resistance, Greater excist, if the same spell could not create different effect on a single target, while not only the last cast version...

Aracor

2020-11-06, 04:12 PM

You are ignoring it.
The very first sentence sets the global rule:

While the last sentence maces it clear that the upcoming chases will be ruled different from the global rule:

other means, that the now coming rules will not default to the global rules that has been set. So, Non of the upcoming rules will default to "spells works as described" past this point anymore! And you are ignoring it all the way long and come to wrong conclusion because of this.
You're still reading this incorrectly. It does NOT say that these rules do not default to the global rule. These rules exist IN ADDITION to the one above. Not necessarily as exceptions.

It is not. It only describes the scenario when you have to apply the rule. Nothing implies how these effects that are cast on the same target has to resolve. And no, as said, you may not default to regular spell resolve cause that has been denied for this section by the last entry sentence.
All it does is to tell you that you might have this situation.
You still haven't proven this. It says these are general rules that apply in addition to the ones above. Therefore this is overall a list of exceptions. If none of these apply, then the main rules do.

Lets try it the other way around. We all know that Enlarge Person doesn't stack (since it even explicitly calls it out as reminder). But nothing stops you from applying the "same spell with the same effect on the same target". I can say "I can cast the same spell with the same effect on the same target". Nothing stops me from that. But how it will resolve and if it makes any difference does stand in other rules which we have. So, the first sentence does nothing more than tell you the scenario when this rule paragraph (with a single rule not 2 different rules with only 1 correct name for the rule..) is to be used (scenario/circumstances). When you explain a rule, you should normally start your explanation with the "when does this rule apply" part.
Okay, so why didn't they do that in this case? In every other case, and in every other section, they chose to explain the rule BEFORE they actually provide the example. That's exactly what leads me to believe that the first sentence is the rule. The second sentence is an example. The third and fourth sentences clarify the example.

You haven't successfully provided evidence (other than your opinion) that this is not the case.

Which the sole example of a paragraph should be unless the is an indicating keyword present to assume otherwise (like exception, sometimes, rarely...). And the lack of real instruction makes your kind of text structure flow inconsistent and broken. And you just ignore it, while there are explanations who don't have these problems.

Nothing in the name of the rule of the paragraph implies a conflict of this kind. How are you interpreting this into "Same Effect with Differing Results"? I repeat, it is not named "Same Effect With Differing Results Where One Effect Makes the Other Irrelevant" (a more fitting name for your interpretation).Correct. That's why the first sentence is instruction. They always provide the rule, then the example.

I have given you enough info why it must be representative, you just keep ignoring them straight.
Just like you keep ignoring my info.

icefractal

2020-11-06, 04:45 PM

Segev

2020-11-06, 05:57 PM

Several times people have referred to, say, fire immunity and acid immunity as "stacking" or "making the other irrelevant" and I'm really not clear where that comes from. They are two separate things. Stacking would be, say, combining Resist Energy (fire) and Resist Energy (fire) to have Fire Resist 60.

The only argument for Fire Resistance being mutually exclusive with Acid Resistance would be "the same spell can never apply multiple effects to a target". Which leads to some odds results like being able to remove a curse with a different curse, but it potentially consistent. However, it also requires that the polymorph/shapechange example not apply to anything except (polymorph) effects, because otherwise combining the two leads to "only one spell effect per target, at all".

Also, and maybe I'm a minority in this, I find "does this interpretation produce an internally consistent (not the same as sensible) set of rules which are compatible with the published material" to be more relevant in RAW than trying to reverse-engineer the exact sentence structure, given that we know WotC has sometimes been sloppy in their phrasing.

The issue at hand is that one side of this debate reads the rules that discuss how polymorph into an owl followed by polymorph into a skunk has the second one trump the first as meaning that resist energy to protect against fire followed by resist energy to protect against acid means that the fire resistance is trumped by the acid resistance, so the target now takes full damage from fire.

The other side of the argument says that, since the two effects are different and non-conflicting, neither trumps the other, they don't stack, but both are in effect.

Darg

2020-11-06, 07:53 PM

Several times people have referred to, say, fire immunity and acid immunity as "stacking" or "making the other irrelevant" and I'm really not clear where that comes from. They are two separate things. Stacking would be, say, combining Resist Energy (fire) and Resist Energy (fire) to have Fire Resist 60.

The only argument for Fire Resistance being mutually exclusive with Acid Resistance would be "the same spell can never apply multiple effects to a target". Which leads to some odds results like being able to remove a curse with a different curse, but it potentially consistent. However, it also requires that the polymorph/shapechange example not apply to anything except (polymorph) effects, because otherwise combining the two leads to "only one spell effect per target, at all".

Also, and maybe I'm a minority in this, I find "does this interpretation produce an internally consistent (not the same as sensible) set of rules which are compatible with the published material" to be more relevant in RAW than trying to reverse-engineer the exact sentence structure, given that we know WotC has sometimes been sloppy in their phrasing.

The rule is that a single spell or magical effect that provides a bonus or penalty does not stack with itself. Later on it further explains that a spell or magical effect with a variable effect makes a previous casting irrelevant. No, a curse isn't removed with a different curse and they are still active on the target, but only one has relevancy. As the effects are untyped, the strongest penalty has precedence. If the effects are different, then the most recent has precedence making the others irrelevant.

Darg

2020-11-06, 09:42 PM

Do you understand what you just said there and how ridiculous it sounds? Polymorph doesn't conflict with itself because you can gain extraordinary special attacks when you polymorph! There is conflict here because any given THING can only have one form. Even the Master Transmogrifist (which explicitly DOES allow mixing of forms with Polymorph) doesn't take away the physical limitation that you can only have one form. It may be a mix, but it's still a single form at any given time.

You obviously didn't read what I have written or you aren't remembering it.

And you claiming that I'm wrong doesn't prove yours. My exceptions aren't arbitrary, they're logical based on the syntax of each individual section of this chapter. What's your point? Honestly at this point, it seems very likely that neither of us are going to convince the other. I'll even admit that I can understand why you read it the way you do. I just don't agree with it.

The issue is that we see the rule as inclusive while you see it as exclusive. We say it applies to all applicable scenarios. You say it only applies to conflicting effects. You're basically saying that the entire "Same Effect With Differing Results" paragraph is redundant and actually serves no purpose. If by common sense and the very effect of the spells it is plain as day that only conflicting effects make each other irrelevant, why does this paragraph exist when the next paragraph says the same thing? Why did they bother to reprint it in the rules compendium? It would probably be the only time they made a general rule redundant by the very next line.

I want to make one more thing clear. Under the rules for stacking effects they always refer to the spell not stacking with itself. Not the effect, but the spell. The spells with bonuses or penalties do not stack with themselves. Spells with varying effects trump themselves. Here is the Rules Compendium's take on it:

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.

Seems like it applies to all spells with varying effects to me. Not just the ones with conflicting effects. So Energy resistance trumps energy resistance, animal affinity trumps animal affinity, bestow curse trumps bestow curse, etc.

Your above example does NOT stand. A polymorphed creature gains the extraordinary special attacks of a form BECAUSE it takes that form. You're trying to put the cart before the horse. So no, the conflict in the example is by virtue of the example. You haven't successfully proven otherwise.

A form is just a shape. The spell has to tell you how you benefit from that form. A costume can be in the form of an ape. Does that mean who so ever wears the costume assumes all qualities and attributes of said form? The spell doesn't say that it's because it assumes the new form. It only states that it gains the special attacks.

Gruftzwerg

2020-11-07, 01:56 AM

Assuming we're talking about DM rulings/house rules, is it broken to have multiple spell effects in place at the same time? Is it broken to have the same spell apply multiple times as long as it's different effects? I don't actually think so. It's still paying for a thing, and it's not piling large numbers on top of each other.

It doesn't break the game, but if we "assume" that it is not RAW/RAI, than it is a free power up at lower lvl/lesser resources than intended. Compare the it with any other method of becoming resistant/immune to types of energy. You would give casters even more power than they already have for no reason (imho). The classes how have access to this spell are already strong, and why you would need to dump their "skillcap" down even further (what stacking these spells with themselves would do. no need to thing strategically anymore. just cast em all). Imho this is a huge power difference.

You're still reading this incorrectly. It does NOT say that these rules do not default to the global rule. These rules exist IN ADDITION to the one above. Not necessarily as exceptions.

You still haven't proven this. It says these are general rules that apply in addition to the ones above. Therefore this is overall a list of exceptions. If none of these apply, then the main rules do.

Adding a rule that does the same as the global rule (resolve spells as normal) is a logical fail.
It would have made sense if they would have called the paragraph with a name more fitting for your interpretation (involving a conflict like in the polymorph chase) and than later made an exception that if there is no conflict, you may resolve as normal. But that is not the chase here.

Okay, so why didn't they do that in this case? In every other case, and in every other section, they chose to explain the rule BEFORE they actually provide the example. That's exactly what leads me to believe that the first sentence is the rule. The second sentence is an example. The third and fourth sentences clarify the example.

You haven't successfully provided evidence (other than your opinion) that this is not the case.

Correct. That's why the first sentence is instruction. They always provide the rule, then the example.
You are just interpreting more in the first sentence then there is.
The rule is that you may cast the same spell, that can produce varying effects, multiple times on the same target. But this sentence nowhere says that the way to resolve em is to add them up as to active buffs (which would cause dysfunctionality with multiple Polymorph spells, if that would have been the rule). So the rule in this single rule paragraph is shown in the example, like all other examples refer to their paragraph as representative example.
If you have 2 theories for something, the one that causes lesser problems is probably the correct one. You reading involves 2 different rules in one paragraph, leaves a rule without explanation, ignores that these general rules should be adding something to the global "spells resolve normally"-rule (should not resolve the same!), implies that "Same Effect with Differing Results" is the sole rule/paragraph without a representative example and got a exception based example where the exception has nothing to do with the rule name... I could go on if you want more...

Just like you keep ignoring my info.
No, I tried always to show you where you misinterpreted something. I can't help if you ignore that your reading causes more problems than it solves. (while other interpretation don't have this issue).

Several times people have referred to, say, fire immunity and acid immunity as "stacking" or "making the other irrelevant" and I'm really not clear where that comes from. They are two separate things. Stacking would be, say, combining Resist Energy (fire) and Resist Energy (fire) to have Fire Resist 60.

The problem is not stacking different immunities or resistances overall (unless they come from spells, you may do that). The problems are the specific spells.

I will explain it via the Energy Immunity spell as representative for the others.

1. There is only one spell called Energy Immunity
2. (fire), (acid)... only show choices that have been made beforehand. That why they are in "()" and not part of the spells regular name.
3. Note that the normal spell block ain't named "Energy Immunity (energy)". It is named "Energy Immunity".

As said, all instances where the element is called out are just referring to the choice already been made (e.g. Potions, or class abilities where you have to choose an energy type).

icefractal

2020-11-07, 05:28 AM

The rule is that a single spell or magical effect that provides a bonus or penalty does not stack with itself. Later on it further explains that a spell or magical effect with a variable effect makes a previous casting irrelevant. No, a curse isn't removed with a different curse and they are still active on the target, but only one has relevancy. As the effects are untyped, the strongest penalty has precedence. If the effects are different, then the most recent has precedence making the others irrelevant.Ok, but immunity to fire is not "a bonus or penalty". To have that not compatible with a second instance, it needs to apply to all spells, not only those that provide a bonus or penalty.

Also, yes, I used sloppy wording there. By "remove a curse with another curse", I meant, "make a curse moot, because the less-harsh curse you override it with will have the same permanent duration it does".

But speaking of which "making the others irrelevant" - this is strange wording if it's supposed to apply to more than things like polymorph. A bonus to strength doesn't make a bonus to dexterity "irrelevant", it might override it, but that's a different thing. It's not like "oh, well I am strong so it doesn't matter whether I'm agile" is a statement that makes any sense within the rest of the rules.

Gruftzwerg

2020-11-07, 09:29 AM

Ok, but immunity to fire is not "a bonus or penalty". To have that not compatible with a second instance, it needs to apply to all spells, not only those that provide a bonus or penalty.
...

But speaking of which "making the others irrelevant" - this is strange wording if it's supposed to apply to more than things like polymorph. A bonus to strength doesn't make a bonus to dexterity "irrelevant", it might override it, but that's a different thing. It's not like "oh, well I am strong so it doesn't matter whether I'm agile" is a statement that makes any sense within the rest of the rules.

Yes, Immunity from Fire is not a bonus or penalty. But that is not the problem here.

We where talking about the "Energy Immunity" spell. And if you cast it in multiple times on the same target the following rule applies:

"Same Effect with Differing Results"
Same Effect = the same Energy Immunity spell being used
Differing Results = the element type chosen.

And this rule says that "None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts."

Darg

2020-11-07, 09:51 AM

Ok, but immunity to fire is not "a bonus or penalty". To have that not compatible with a second instance, it needs to apply to all spells, not only those that provide a bonus or penalty.

Also, yes, I used sloppy wording there. By "remove a curse with another curse", I meant, "make a curse moot, because the less-harsh curse you override it with will have the same permanent duration it does".

But speaking of which "making the others irrelevant" - this is strange wording if it's supposed to apply to more than things like polymorph. A bonus to strength doesn't make a bonus to dexterity "irrelevant", it might override it, but that's a different thing. It's not like "oh, well I am strong so it doesn't matter whether I'm agile" is a statement that makes any sense within the rest of the rules.

The Rules compendium dropped the polymorph example completely.

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.

So it does appear to apply to all spells with variable effects.

The thing is, bestow curse being overwritten by another bestow curse isn't any different from polymorph to troll being overwritten by polymorph to bunny. What you think is your friend could be your enemy.

Irrelevant is a dismissive term. It's saying that the previous effects are no longer important or have no relevance.

Segev

2020-11-07, 10:36 AM

The Rules compendium dropped the polymorph example completely.

So it does appear to apply to all spells with variable effects.

The thing is, bestow curse being overwritten by another bestow curse isn't any different from polymorph to troll being overwritten by polymorph to bunny. What you think is your friend could be your enemy.

Irrelevant is a dismissive term. It's saying that the previous effects are no longer important or have no relevance.

In that case, you can only have one buff or debuff active at a time. Period.

unseenmage

2020-11-07, 11:22 AM

In that case, you can only have one buff or debuff active at a time. Period.

Will this also apply to wondrous items that apply the spell effect with standard action activation as well? Guess we get to save gp on buying that wardobe full of buff items too.

Gruftzwerg

2020-11-07, 07:10 PM

In that case, you can only have one buff or debuff active at a time. Period.

If it is from the same spell, yeah.

because the rule is:

Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell
the same spell != any spells

Segev

2020-11-07, 07:12 PM

If it is from the same spell, yeah.

because the rule is:

the same spell != any spells
The shape change example disagrees. And disproves the thesis.

Gruftzwerg

2020-11-07, 07:33 PM

The shape change example disagrees. And disproves the thesis.

What Shapechange rules are you talking about?

I guess you mean the Shapechange example in the "other rule":

One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant

This rule is for different spells & effects where the effects are at least partially in conflict. The rule explains via the example of Shapechange & Polymorph being cast, that Polymorph can affect you while you use Shapechange. But it does not stop the parts of Shapechange that are not in conflict: namely the ability to choose a new form if wanted, and thus overwrite the active Polymorph with a more recent transformation from Shapechange.

This rule has nothing to do with "Same Effect with Differing Results:" Which talk about "The same spell.."

One rule talks about the same spell with varying effect..
the other about different spells & effect that have effect which are in conflict to some degree..

two different thing that can't appy at the same time, since "the same spell" can't be "different spells" at the same time...

Can you please wake up and stop forgetting all the other arguments, that have been repeated several times now, after each new post?? It's getting annoying. Stop mixing 2 different rules together that don't belong together.

Segev

2020-11-07, 08:47 PM

What Shapechange rules are you talking about?

I guess you mean the Shapechange example in the "other rule":

This rule is for different spells & effects where the effects are at least partially in conflict. The rule explains via the example of Shapechange & Polymorph being cast, that Polymorph can affect you while you use Shapechange. But it does not stop the parts of Shapechange that are not in conflict: namely the ability to choose a new form if wanted, and thus overwrite the active Polymorph with a more recent transformation from Shapechange.

This rule has nothing to do with "Same Effect with Differing Results:" Which talk about "The same spell.."

One rule talks about the same spell with varying effect..
the other about different spells & effect that have effect which are in conflict to some degree..

two different thing that can't appy at the same time, since "the same spell" can't be "different spells" at the same time...

Can you please wake up and stop forgetting all the other arguments, that have been repeated several times now, after each new post?? It's getting annoying. Stop mixing 2 different rules together that don't belong together.

As I've said, I see how you are interpreting it that way. I have explained why I interpret it otherwise and find your reasoning less than convincing, but I do not expect to convince you.

I simply think this is a useful discussion for DMs to have help making decisions for their own games.

Gruftzwerg

2020-11-08, 02:54 AM

As I've said, I see how you are interpreting it that way. I have explained why I interpret it otherwise and find your reasoning less than convincing, but I do not expect to convince you.

I simply think this is a useful discussion for DMs to have help making decisions for their own games.

sry but you just explained how you like to juggle around with rules as you please.
You just ignore all evidence presented:
1. the fact the following "other rules" presented can't be the same as the default rule to resolve spells, because the have to be "other" in some way.
2. How your interpretation destroys, the layout. Packs 2 different rules into a single paragraph with a non representative name. Leaves rules without explanation nor a name.

Sorry there is nothing to decide for the DM if you can read and comprehend the text given as it is. There is no vague grey area. There is enough text structure and keywords given for only a single way to interpret it. You just keep ignoring all evidence presented (and accuse that WotC did a bad editing..) and just loop trough your already falsified arguments.

Segev

2020-11-08, 03:06 AM

No, I explained that I don’t find your argument convincing.

Darg

2020-11-08, 09:58 AM

No, I explained that I don’t find your argument convincing.

You can't convince someone who isn't open to changing their belief in something.

You have one rule that talks about the same spell overwriting itself.

You then have a different rule that talks about different spells overwriting relevant effects, but leaving nonconflicting effects untouched.

Some how you managed to merge these two rules by your own admission to come to the conclusion that all spells overwrite all spells.

As I said, you can't convince someone who isn't being open minded, but don't continue with this:

In that case, you can only have one buff or debuff active at a time. Period.

When you have yet to explain this phenomenon. No one else in this thread sees this outcome as a possibility. So please outline how this actually works.

Darg

2020-11-09, 11:38 AM

I found this in the XPH:

Same Effect with Differing Results: The same power or spell
can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same
recipient more than once. For example, a shadow body power
could turn a psion into a living shadow, but if it is immedi-
ately followed by metamorphosis, even while the shadow body
would normally remain in effect, the effect of metamorphosis
trumps the shadow body. If metamorphosis were followed by a
series of polymorph spells cast by an interfering wizard, the
last effect in the series trumps the others. None of the previ-
ous spells or powers are actually removed or dispelled, but
their effects become irrelevant while the fi nal spell or power
in the series lasts.

One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant: Sometimes, a power
can render another power irrelevant. For example, if a
psion manifested specified energy adaptation on himself,
giving himself resistance to fire 10, and then manifested
energy adaptation, giving him resistance 10 against all four
kinds of energy, then the specified energy adaptation would
be irrelevant.

Maybe this incoherent mess is where the idea comes from? It doesn't actually change the meaning of anything, but i could see it being more confusing. Energy adaptation actually protects against all 5 energy types....

Aracor

2020-11-09, 03:25 PM

Maybe this incoherent mess is where the idea comes from? It doesn't actually change the meaning of anything, but i could see it being more confusing. Energy adaptation actually protects against all 5 energy types....

True, but they DO say "Specified Energy Adaptation" at first. Which DOES only protect against one element at a time. So they're saying Specified Energy Adaptation's protection against fire is irrelevant when Energy Adaptation is manifested and therefore protects against all elements at once.

What I find even more interesting is that they're suggesting that Shadow Body is the same EFFECT as Metamorphosis, even though the powers being used aren't the same.

icefractal

2020-11-09, 06:00 PM

Those headings just make it more confusing. Neither example there is talking about the same spell/power. 🤔

Now that (the SEA + EA one) is what I *would* call making it irrelevant. But unfortunately it doesn't say anything about the in-question case: SEA(fire) + SEA(acid). The fact that it doesn't is, IMO, an implication that it wouldn't apply then (ie you can have fire resist and acid resist at once from SEA), but it's only an implication.

Darg

2020-11-09, 08:03 PM

True, but they DO say "Specified Energy Adaptation" at first. Which DOES only protect against one element at a time. So they're saying Specified Energy Adaptation's protection against fire is irrelevant when Energy Adaptation is manifested and therefore protects against all elements at once.

What if fire was the one left off from Energy Adaptation though? :confused:

What I find even more interesting is that they're suggesting that Shadow Body is the same EFFECT as Metamorphosis, even though the powers being used aren't the same.

Well, the wording implies that they are the same power and not just the same effect. Maybe it's just evidence that all psionics are simply one ability with a multitude of varied effects. The wording doesn't change anything for spells though... other than spells can make powers irrelevant.

Those headings just make it more confusing. Neither example there is talking about the same spell/power. 🤔

Now that (the SEA + EA one) is what I *would* call making it irrelevant. But unfortunately it doesn't say anything about the in-question case: SEA(fire) + SEA(acid). The fact that it doesn't is, IMO, an implication that it wouldn't apply then (ie you can have fire resist and acid resist at once from SEA), but it's only an implication.

It still has the series of polymorph spells in there. I feel like whoever wrote the rules didn't actually understand the rules so it simply doesn't actually say anything. The PHB version has more information than this one. Thankfully since getting a copy of the rules compendium I can simply point out that version.

Aracor

2020-11-10, 09:07 AM

Well, the wording implies that they are the same power and not just the same effect. Maybe it's just evidence that all psionics are simply one ability with a multitude of varied effects. The wording doesn't change anything for spells though... other than spells can make powers irrelevant.

That's not the only way to read that. It could be suggesting that the EFFECT is changing the manifester's shape. And using different powers to do so means that the last "shape changing effect" trumps the rest.

Which could imply that using Metamorphosis followed by Form of Doom would actually turn off the Metamorphosis power?

Interesting...

Darg

2020-11-10, 04:19 PM

That's not the only way to read that. It could be suggesting that the EFFECT is changing the manifester's shape. And using different powers to do so means that the last "shape changing effect" trumps the rest.

Which could imply that using Metamorphosis followed by Form of Doom would actually turn off the Metamorphosis power?

Interesting...

It could be taken that way, but it would require ignoring the setup the first sentence provides or reading as an iteration of commonality rather than as part of the procession of a rule. The later being the common source of disagreement in this thread.

Form of Doom has special rules in its description that turns off its own effect while taking a different form or already possessing a different form.

What is really interesting, is that shadowbody doesn't actually change your form, your body simply gets subsumed, absorbed, or brought into your shadow. By extension there shouldn't be any irrelevancy actually happening. Considering Shadow Body doesn't change your type, subtype, or shape it stands to reason this should be the case. Unless psionics are all one ability... Personally I think they erred the whole rule segment considering the direction that the rules compendium took, but there really isn't much else to say at this point.

Anthrowhale

2020-11-11, 07:27 PM

I want to make sure I have this thread straight.

The claim is that energy immunity can only grant immunity to one flavor of energy at a time because any extra casting overwrites the prior immunity.

The basis of this is "Same Effect with Differing Results" under "Stacking Effects". The text in the PHB is somewhat ambiguous because it defines what happens with polymorph. The Rules Compendium says:

Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others.

My doubt here is that "Usually" is not an absolute qualifier combined with:

None of the previous spells are actually removed ..., but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.
There are two ways to interpret this. One is that this is specifying what happens to earlier spells in the series. The other is that this is specifying the "Usual case". I've previously read it as specifying the "Usual case". Under that interpretation, Polymorph is usual case (and hence trumping occurs) while energy immunity is not (so no trumping occurs, and you can be immune to multiple flavors of energy).

Is there are an argument that this is a specification of the outcome rather than a scoping of "usual"?

Darg

2020-11-11, 11:33 PM

"Usually" simply means there are exceptions to the rule:

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.

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

A spell is its effect. If the effect is different, is the spell a different spell? Your reading ignores the blanket statement made at the start of the segment, "The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once." Different effects, same spell. I have refrained from the argument of polymorph providing bonuses and penalties and energy immunity providing penalties because the concept seemed too easy to prove and too easy to dismiss even with the quote above being a rule.

As I said before, "usually" means "under normal circumstances" or "generally." Using the word is implying there are exceptions to this rule. The issue is that the exceptions are not stated. Energy Immunity does not provide this exception. So, some where we need to find a more specific rule to allow Energy Immunity to stack. If we take the exception to be the rule, all other spells that are not polymorph stack with themselves. That is why we shouldn't take the exception as the rule.

As an example to this, resist energy does not say that it can't stack with itself. What rule is preventing it exactly? One could say that ignoring damage is not a penalty to damage. So what now? The rule is that bonuses and penalties don't stack from the same source. If it isn't a bonus or penalty nothing is preventing it from stacking with itself. The same thing could be said of damage reduction as it also ignores damage and the rule is that damage reduction from different sources don't stack. However, if you say it is a bonus or penalty then the rule applies to bonuses and penalties that aren't modifiers such as feats (heroics *cough*), attacks (Girallon's Blessing), etc. This would also mean that the above quoted rule would apply to Energy Immunity.

Anthrowhale

2020-11-12, 08:24 AM

"Usually" simply means there are exceptions to the rule:

Agreed.

A spell is its effect. If the effect is different, is the spell a different spell?

It is not a different spell, but it is a different instance of the same spell. For example, dispelling one instance does not imply dispelling the other. We agree that spells can have multiple instances, correct?

Your reading ignores the blanket statement made at the start of the segment, "The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once." Different effects, same spell.

I agree that it is different effects from the same spell, but I don't understand what you think is being ignored.

As I said before, "usually" means "under normal circumstances" or "generally."

Or "more often than not".

Using the word is implying there are exceptions to this rule.

Agreed.

The issue is that the exceptions are not stated.

Or, they are. The sentence following "Usually..." provides a test for the usual case.

If we take the exception to be the rule, all other spells that are not polymorph stack with themselves. That is why we shouldn't take the exception as the rule.

I'm not following the logic, but I disagree with the conclusion. Consider "Bite of Werebear" and "Bite of Weretiger". These have conflicting effects so effects from the first spell cast "become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts."

As an example to this, resist energy does not say that it can't stack with itself. What rule is preventing it exactly?

Spells that provide bonuses .. on ... other attributes usually do not stack with themselves.
Fire resistance is an attribute in the conventional English definition of the word (as is clearly meant here) and so providing it is a bonus to the creature which benefits from it. As a consequence of this rule, resist energy[fire] and resist energy[fire] do not provide stacking fire resistance. On the other hand electricity resistance is a different attribute so castings of resist energy[fire] and resist energy[electricity] do not invoke this rule.

However, if you say it is a bonus or penalty then the rule applies to bonuses and penalties that aren't modifiers such as feats (heroics *cough*)

Do you believe that "has a bonus feat" is an attribute? I believe that's incorrect as there are several monsters with mulitple bonus feats. Instead, the attribute here is has feat[x]. This is pretty clear from reading monster manual entries.

Gruftzwerg

2020-11-12, 10:56 AM

My doubt here is that "Usually" is not an absolute qualifier combined with:

It's not, but that doesn't change anything for the rules as presented.

1. While "usually" implies that it is not absolute, it indicated that it is going to talk about the more common part now. There doesn't stay "unusually" to imply that it is going to talk about the less common stuff.

2. If no exception example is given, you can only find em by brute force searching method, because we ain't have any reliable info who an exception might look like (structure/scenario).

So what we have is a rule how it resolves "usually" (and not how it resolves "unusually").

AnimeTheCat

2020-11-12, 02:30 PM

Anthrowhale

2020-11-12, 08:03 PM

...
The text does not talk about the unusual case---it talks about the usual case. I parse it as:

"[In the usual case,] None of the previous spells are actually removed ..., but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts."

This all takes place under the general rule that:

Spells ... usually work as described, no matter how many other spells ... happen to be operating ... on the same recipient.

So under this understanding, spells work as described except when you cast the same spell with different effects where the previous effect becomes irrelevant in the context of later spells (... or other special cases apply).

sreservoir

2020-11-12, 09:49 PM

Darg

2020-11-12, 10:00 PM

Agreed.

It is not a different spell, but it is a different instance of the same spell. For example, dispelling one instance does not imply dispelling the other. We agree that spells can have multiple instances, correct?

I agree that it is different effects from the same spell, but I don't understand what you think is being ignored.

Maybe "same source" is the better term. It's multiple instances of the same source. So, magical effect sources don't stack with themselves if they provide any bonus or penalty.

I'm not following the logic, but I disagree with the conclusion. Consider "Bite of Werebear" and "Bite of Weretiger". These have conflicting effects so effects from the first spell cast "become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts."

That falls under a different rule: "One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant." "Same Effect With Differing Results" pertains to a single spell, a single source, used multiple times on the same target. They are not the same thing.

Or, they are. The sentence following "Usually..." provides a test for the usual case.

The rules compendium doesn't provide an example. So the preceding sentence, "The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once," is the scenario that is being referred to for the rule, "Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others," and is then followed with an explanation on how it works in the context of the game: "None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts."

Putting it all together: More often than not, the same spell producing a different effect trumps the same spell cast prior; this makes any previous casting of that spell irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

The usual case is that the spell will trump itself. To go against this rule the spell or another more specific rule must be stated. There are cases where an exception to this is made such as Enhance Wild Shape. I don't recall any example where a spell says it can't stack with itself specifically. When it does, it's part of a broader spectrum of effects such as Haste and does not actually only prevent itself from stacking.

Fire resistance is an attribute in the conventional English definition of the word (as is clearly meant here) and so providing it is a bonus to the creature which benefits from it. As a consequence of this rule, resist energy[fire] and resist energy[fire] do not provide stacking fire resistance. On the other hand electricity resistance is a different attribute so castings of resist energy[fire] and resist energy[electricity] do not invoke this rule.

Do you believe that "has a bonus feat" is an attribute? I believe that's incorrect as there are several monsters with mulitple bonus feats. Instead, the attribute here is has feat[x]. This is pretty clear from reading monster manual entries.

Fire resistance is a special ability, hence the "gains x resistance." "Bonus" according to the definition provided by WotC is a positive modifier to a die roll. As gaining an ability is not a modifier to a die roll, nor is ignoring damage the same as modifying the roll; it by definition can't be a bonus. As only bonuses or penalties from the same source can't stack, Energy Resistance (Fire) would stack with itself. If it were a "bonus" that would mean anything that could be a bonus that doesn't fit the definition as presented by WoTC would be a bonus. Hence the "bonus" feat from Heroics would be a bonus and would be subject to being a "usual" case.

The text does not talk about the unusual case---it talks about the usual case. I parse it as:

"[In the usual case,] None of the previous spells are actually removed ..., but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts."

This all takes place under the general rule that:

So under this understanding, spells work as described except when you cast the same spell with different effects where the previous effect becomes irrelevant in the context of later spells (... or other special cases apply).

You are missing the fact that it also falls under the more specific rule:

Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes don’t stack with themselves.

The following rules detail how that plays out. If the spell is not subject to the above quoted rule, it is not subject to any of the following rules. Because the PHB specifically uses polymorph as an example, Polymorph falls under being a bonus or penalty on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes. Bestow Curse provides penalties for all 4 of them which means it doesn't stack with itself and is further explained as making each of the previous effects irrelevant while the latest spell is active. There is no rule for the exception provided and therefore the spell must be the source of the exception. If it doesn't have an exception in its rules text it does not stack.

Gruftzwerg

2020-11-13, 12:10 AM

general question, maybe this has been considered, maybe it hasn't:

Is the effect of casting Resist Energy the same if the result is Energy Resistance (Cold) vs Energy Resistance (Electric)? Concisely, is Energy Resistance (Cold) the same effect as Energy Resistance (Electric)? If the answer is no, then the section on Same Effect, Differing Results is utterly irrelevant. This question can be taken in to the same though process with Bestow Curse as well. In fact, the Bestow Curse spell specifically says "Choose one of the following effects", which seems to indicate that those are different effects, not different results.

Polymorph is different than either Resist Energy or Bestow Curse because it's always having the same effect, that is it's effect is to "...change the willing subject in to the form of another creature", as opposed to "Choose one of the effects below." or "The subject gains energy resistance 10 against the energy type chosen...".

As near as I can tell, the effects of different castings of Resist Energy and Bestow Curse are different from each other, while the effect of Polymorph is the same no matter how many times you cast it, but the result of that effect can be different each time, thus causing the need for a specific rule about Same Effects, Different Results.

Just my 2 CP.

1. It depends on the source/s. The rule limits spells with varying effect to stack with themselves on a single target and only leaves the last instance active.

2. Choices to be made for a spell (e.g. choosing element type) are part of the spells effect.

3. Resistance to fire XX != Resist Energy (fire) XX
Immunity to fire != Energy Immunity (fire)
The first are natural abilities, while the latter are Spells where a choice have been made.

4. The spells name and ()
Things added in () aren't part of the spell name. They refer to the choice that has already been made. E.g. while crafting you have to make all nesseccary choices like elelement type or which form to transform etc.. So if you find a Resist Energy potion, you need to know somehow which choice the crafter used for that potion. That't why the loot is declared as "Resist Energy (fire)". But they "()" don't change the name of the spell/effect.

_____________

The text does not talk about the unusual case---it talks about the usual case. I parse it as:

"[In the usual case,] None of the previous spells are actually removed ..., but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts."

This all takes place under the general rule that:

So under this understanding, spells work as described except when you cast the same spell with different effects where the previous effect becomes irrelevant in the context of later spells (... or other special cases apply).
??
That's what I have been saying over the last pages. The post you quoted was meant to show the "usually" refers to the more common examples and can't refer to exceptions (while implying that there are exceptions).

Have we misunderstood each other?^^

Anthrowhale

2020-11-13, 06:03 AM

Maybe "same source" is the better term. It's multiple instances of the same source. So, magical effect sources don't stack with themselves if they provide any bonus or penalty.

Agreed. I would add though that they do overlap in the sense that both spells operate and they are dispelled separately.

That falls under a different rule: "One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant."

Good point. However, it's still the case, even in core, that Polymorph is not the only such spell. In core, there are is Nystul's magic Aura, Disguise Self, Alter Self, Polymorph, Hallucinatory Terrain, Baleful Polymorph, Hallow, Unhallow, Seeming, Contingency, Veil, Forbiddance, Polymorph Any Object, Screen, and Shapechange which all are spells with noninstantaneous durations and specifiable effects where the last casting either plausibly or definitively trumps the previous.

In contrast, I can think of Locate Object, Magic Mouth, Resist Energy, Bestow Curse, Locate Creature, Suggestion, and Protection from Energy where the overlapping effects of spells are usually or always noninterfering.

More often than not, the same spell producing a different effect trumps the same spell cast prior; this makes any previous casting of that spell irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

The usual case is that the spell will trump itself.

Agreed.

To go against this rule the spell or another more specific rule must be stated.

I agree, although perhaps not in the way that you imagine. My test here is: when you read the spell, is it the case that two different specified effects would interfere with each other? You appear to be taking this as "always because of the rule", but I'm reading the spell to discover this and finding that "usually" is a good descriptor, consistent with the rule.

I don't recall any example where a spell says it can't stack with itself specifically.

There are several---see Contingency or Hallow/Unhallow as examples.

"Bonus" according to the definition provided by WotC is a positive modifier to a die roll.

WotC may define words in special ways, but when they use it as the conventional english definition, it should be understood via the conventional english definition. If they meant "a positive modifier to a roll", then no spell providing a bonus to armor class would work. That's nonsense, so you should use the conventional english definition of 'bonus' here.

You are missing the fact that it also falls under the more specific rule:

The following rules detail how that plays out. If the spell is not subject to the above quoted rule, it is not subject to any of the following rules.

I agree this rule applies.

I suspect the confusion has to do with the word 'stack'. You seem to be interpreting 'stack' as 'provide more beneficial effect'. I'm interpreting 'stack' as 'provide the same beneficial effect to a greater degree'. The latter interpretation appears more consistent with the stacking section (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#stacking) and usage elsewhere.

Because the PHB specifically uses polymorph as an example, Polymorph falls under being a bonus or penalty on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes.
In particular, it changes 'other attributes' like creature type. The general changing of attributes can be thought of as a change to the monster manual entry.

Bestow Curse provides penalties for all 4 of them which means it doesn't stack with itself and is further explained as making each of the previous effects irrelevant while the latest spell is active. There is no rule for the exception provided and therefore the spell must be the source of the exception. If it doesn't have an exception in its rules text it does not stack.
Bestow Curse says:

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.
Your apparent interpretation of 'stack' implies that bestow curse is a means for removing a curse (by accepting a different curse) so it should be enumerated here. It is not, because the definition of stack you appear to be using is inconsistent with that used by the game designers.

Have we misunderstood each other?^^
I suspect yes. What is your definition of 'stack'?

Gruftzwerg

2020-11-13, 06:52 AM

What is your definition of 'stack'?

The general definition of "3.5 stacking" is found in the Basics (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm) and is referring to modificators (bonus or penalty) to some dice roll.

Every other instance of "stacking" in 3.5 are exceptions rules to the general stacking rules that allow other things to explicitly "stack" with each other. These exceptions call out how they are supposed to stack and therefore don't fall under the "common sense" logic. They need to explicitly call out the exception to be able to "stack"( or some other way of wording that multiple instances work together). And we lack the permission to "stack" the same spell with varying effects on the same target since the rule only explains how these interfere with each other and only the last spell is relevant/active.

If you want a general definition of what stacking is, I would say it is the instruction when to add/sum up effects.
Did that answer your question?

AnimeTheCat

2020-11-13, 08:55 AM

So, despite the heading, the text is talking spells (a) sometimes producing varying effects (b) trumping each other (c) having their effects become irrelevant. Everything about the rule operates at the level of individual spells, not individual effects.

1. It depends on the source/s. The rule limits spells with varying effect to stack with themselves on a single target and only leaves the last instance active.

The section isn't talking about the spell though, it's discussing the effect. "None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but the effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts." The spells remain but the effects are irrelevant. The spells aren't trumping anything, the effects are trumping each other. This makes it a contest of effects. Why would the effect of a polymorph spell that turns you in to a snail make the effects of a polymorph spell that turns you in to a lion be irrelevant? Because you're not a lion anymore, and you can't simultaneously be a lion and a snail. The lion polymorph spell is still active (the duration ticks down) but the effect is irrelevant because you're a snail and not a lion. The same line of reasoning can't hold true when compared to Bestow Curse or Resist Energy. The effect of the spell polymorph is the same no matter how many times you cast it, which is why it's used as the example. The effect of Resist Energy is not the same, unless you cast it to affect the same energy source. In the case of polymorph, with the spell having the same effect with differing results, the final spell trumps all of the others because the effect (transform the target in to a snail) can't simultaneously occur with the effect of another polymorph spell (transform the target in to a Lion).

2. Choices to be made for a spell (e.g. choosing element type) are part of the spells effect.
Right, not disputing that, which means that when you cast Resist Energy and choose cold, you're creating a different effect than if you cast Resist Energy and selected fire. Resist Energy does not have to be prepared as Resist Energy (Fire) or Resist Energy (Cold) in the same way that the Protection from X spells have to be prepared specifically for good/evil/chaos/law.

3. Resistance to fire XX != Resist Energy (fire) XX
Immunity to fire != Energy Immunity (fire)
The first are natural abilities, while the latter are Spells where a choice have been made.
You are correct that Resistance to Fire 10 is not the same as the spell Resist Energy. But the effect of the spell Resist Energy is, "The subject gains energy resistance 10 against the energy type chosen,..." Then that paragraph goes on to describe Resistance to Energy. So Resistance to Fire 10 = The effect of the spell Resist Energy when the effect is created targeting the fire energy type.

4. The spells name and ()
Things added in () aren't part of the spell name. They refer to the choice that has already been made. E.g. while crafting you have to make all nesseccary choices like elelement type or which form to transform etc.. So if you find a Resist Energy potion, you need to know somehow which choice the crafter used for that potion. That't why the loot is declared as "Resist Energy (fire)". But they "()" don't change the name of the spell/effect.

The "()" only exist on items and, as was discussed earlier in the thread, that's likely because the spell is completely cast when creating a potion, but is a spell completion item when created as a scroll.

Spells |= Spell Effects. The effect of Bless is a +1 Morale Bonus to various rolls, not "Bless".

sreservoir

2020-11-13, 06:49 PM

The section isn't talking about the spell though, it's discussing the effect. "None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but the effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts." The spells remain but the effects are irrelevant. The spells aren't trumping anything, the effects are trumping each other.

The text disagrees with you:

Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others.

The general definition of "3.5 stacking" is found in the Basics (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm) and is referring to modificators (bonus or penalty) to some dice roll.

Every other instance of "stacking" in 3.5 are exceptions rules to the general stacking rules that allow other things to explicitly "stack" with each other. These exceptions call out how they are supposed to stack and therefore don't fall under the "common sense" logic. They need to explicitly call out the exception to be able to "stack"( or some other way of wording that multiple instances work together). And we lack the permission to "stack" the same spell with varying effects on the same target since the rule only explains how these interfere with each other and only the last spell is relevant/active.

If you want a general definition of what stacking is, I would say it is the instruction when to add/sum up effects.
Did that answer your question?

And how, based on this definition, do you propose that distinct effects that are not "modifiers to a given check or roll" are subject to the "stacking" rules?

Darg

2020-11-14, 12:28 AM

And how, based on this definition, do you propose that distinct effects that are not "modifiers to a given check or roll" are subject to the "stacking" rules?

By using examples of effects that aren't bonuses by the definition in the glossary and following probable intent that they aren't meant to stack. Energy Resistance and Stoneskin are examples. Energy Resistance and damage reduction aren't bonuses or penalties by the definition in the glossary. Damage is simply ignored. This means these spells must actually stack with themselves; unless, they provide a bonus to an attribute that is not a die roll.

WotC doesn't define attribute and there are many cases of WotC using the word "bonus" to describe a benefit that doesn't pertain to a die roll. If we use the dictionary definition of attribute it would pertain to the character. So effects that are external to the character couldn't be considered an attribute of the character. Energy resistance and damage reduction are abilities the character posesses. Feats are a quality of capability the character posesses. By definition they would be attributes of a character. If a character gains something it would be a bonus.

Darg

2020-11-14, 01:31 AM

Good point. However, it's still the case, even in core, that Polymorph is not the only such spell. In core, there are is Nystul's magic Aura, Disguise Self, Alter Self, Polymorph, Hallucinatory Terrain, Baleful Polymorph, Hallow, Unhallow, Seeming, Contingency, Veil, Forbiddance, Polymorph Any Object, Screen, and Shapechange which all are spells with noninstantaneous durations and specifiable effects where the last casting either plausibly or definitively trumps the previous.

In contrast, I can think of Locate Object, Magic Mouth, Resist Energy, Bestow Curse, Locate Creature, Suggestion, and Protection from Energy where the overlapping effects of spells are usually or always noninterfering.

First I want to say that Hallow and Unhallow are instantaneous duration. Second, if the rule about stacking varied effects applies to spells whose effects couldn't be considered a bonus or penalty then it even more broadly covers your second group of spells making the latest cast trump the previous castings.

I agree, although perhaps not in the way that you imagine. My test here is: when you read the spell, is it the case that two different specified effects would interfere with each other? You appear to be taking this as "always because of the rule", but I'm reading the spell to discover this and finding that "usually" is a good descriptor, consistent with the rule.

Your "test" is simply relegating a rule to be a statement of the obvious. A rule is there to govern play, not express logical conclusion.

I suspect the confusion has to do with the word 'stack'. You seem to be interpreting 'stack' as 'provide more beneficial effect'. I'm interpreting 'stack' as 'provide the same beneficial effect to a greater degree'. The latter interpretation appears more consistent with the stacking section (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#stacking) and usage elsewhere.

WotC defines stack as "combine for cumulative effect." It isn't just adding or subtracting numbers. Cumulative can be defined as "increasing by successive additions" and as "made up of accumulated parts."

Your apparent interpretation of 'stack' implies that bestow curse is a means for removing a curse (by accepting a different curse) so it should be enumerated here. It is not, because the definition of stack you appear to be using is inconsistent with that used by the game designers.

A curse is not removed and my interpretation implies following the rules which state that the effect isn't removed but made irrelevant while the latest cast is active. Personally I would argue that it falls under the "Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths" category as the effect is a curse. Might require some DM arbitration, but the strongest curse against that character should have priority not that they could be cursed 100 times with the same spell. There are other sources of curses that aren't bestow curse and they would stack with bestow curse.

Anthrowhale

2020-11-14, 10:09 AM

First I want to say that Hallow and Unhallow are instantaneous duration.
Agreed---missed that. (Un)Hallow is badly written spell because it technically has an effect over zero area (...since area is constrained by range).

Regardless, I believe the number of spells I pointed out implies that in core (where the rules were defined) the "usual" case dominates the unusual case numerically.

Second ... stacking ...

Yeah, the definition of "stacking" seems to be the crux of the divergence.

Your "test" is simply relegating a rule to be a statement of the obvious.

It's a reasonable and common editorial practice throughout the rules to explain things. I have also previously seen people use such explanations to infer rules which aren't.

WotC defines stack as "combine for cumulative effect." It isn't just adding or subtracting numbers. Cumulative can be defined as "increasing by successive additions" and as "made up of accumulated parts."

Neither of your preferred 'cumulatives' apply. If you cast Resist energy[fire] and Resist Energy[Acid], then the acid resistance is not "increased by successive additions" or "made up of accumulated parts". You can claim that all resistances are one thing to get the latter to apply, but there is no rules support for the set of all resistances being a single attribute. There is rules support for 'resistance to acid' being a single attribute. You can see this by looking here (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#resistanceToEnergy) and noting text such as:

Each resistance ability...
Furthermore, if we used your notion of all energy resistances being a single thing then this clause:

This resistance does not stack with the resistance that a spell might provide.
would imply that an Aasimar could never benefit from Resist Energy due to their built in resistance.

A curse is not removed and ... the effect isn't removed but made irrelevant while the latest cast is active. Personally I would argue that it falls under the "Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths" category as the effect is a curse. Might require some DM arbitration, but the strongest curse against that character should have priority not that they could be cursed 100 times with the same spell.
I'm imagining some hilarity here where a wizard is cursed to reduce intelligence so he gets a curse to reduce strength but it doesn't work, so he gives up and becomes a fighter, and then the curse to reduce strength becomes the "strongest curse against that character" so it becomes dominant.

The logic of one curse suppressing the other is a direct contradiction of this (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#combiningMagicalEffects):

Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, the spell description explains that effect.

Darg

2020-11-14, 03:04 PM

Neither of your preferred 'cumulatives' apply. If you cast Resist energy[fire] and Resist Energy[Acid], then the acid resistance is not "increased by successive additions" or "made up of accumulated parts". You can claim that all resistances are one thing to get the latter to apply, but there is no rules support for the set of all resistances being a single attribute. There is rules support for 'resistance to acid' being a single attribute. You can see this by looking here (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#resistanceToEnergy) and noting text such as:

Furthermore, if we used your notion of all energy resistances being a single thing then this clause:

would imply that an Aasimar could never benefit from Resist Energy due to their built in resistance.

Your premise seems to be based on the effects of spells are made different because the effect is different from another version of itself. That is not the case. The title of the rule says same effect. The rule text says same spell. 1+1 means that a spell has 1 effect no matter how variable it may be. Energy Resistance (fire) and Energy Resistance (acid) from the spell Energy Resistance are the exact same effect. Casting the same spell multiple time only created multiple instances of the same effect indistinguishable from each other other than the outcome and the order they were cast in.

Your aasimar example makes no sense. It says it doesn't stack, not that the stronger effect doesn't have precedence.

I'm imagining some hilarity here where a wizard is cursed to reduce intelligence so he gets a curse to reduce strength but it doesn't work, so he gives up and becomes a fighter, and then the curse to reduce strength becomes the "strongest curse against that character" so it becomes dominant.

It's all the same effect. Your example makes no sense at all. Why would the wizard have bestow curse cast on him when he could have simply had the effect removed? I would argue that the dominant effect is determined at application as portrayed in the example provided by the rule. I meant with my previous post that this would be a variant reading, not how I actually view a strict reading of the rules.

The logic of one curse suppressing the other is a direct contradiction of this (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#combiningMagicalEffects):

This would not be true. That rule pertains to different spells. This is the same spell not a different spell. Same spell, same effect.

Anthrowhale

2020-11-14, 05:48 PM

...
I think we are at the agree-to-disagree point because we seem to have started to go into circles. Nevertheless, I wanted to lay out my understanding of the rules coherently in one post.

Starting here (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#combiningMagicalEffects)

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.
The default is that everything works independently of everything else, including instances of the same spell. As a consequence, as of this sentence, Resist Energy[fire] followed by Resist Energy[acid] results in resistance to fire {10,20,30} and resistance to acid {10,20,30}. That might change as we read more rules. The next sentence is redundant with this one but the one after is possibly relevant.

Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, the spell description explains that effect.
Examples certainly include dispel magic and antimagic field. This could be talking about spells not affecting spells or about spell instances not affecting spell instances. If it's the latter, then Resist Energy[Fire] followed by Resist Energy[Acid] results in resistance to fire {10,20,30} and resistance to acid {10,20,30}. There is some ambiguity though and later rules could override this one anyways. The next sentence is just transition text, leading to:

Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves.
We are interested in the "attributes" clause here because resistance to fire 10 is an attribute (potentially provided by resist energy). Thus resist energy[fire] and resist energy[fire] will not stack since they both affect the attribute of resistance to fire. However, each flavor of energy resistance (fire, acid, electricity, sonic, cold) is treated as a separate attribute throughout the rules implying resist energy[fire] and resist energy[acid] will result in resistance to fire {10,20,30} and resistance to acid {10,20,30} since they are affecting different attributes. The next sentence is not relevant to the dispute, leading to:

The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once.
This is relevant to Resist Energy because it can produce a varying effect.

Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others.
"Usually" here is about the predominant case. What's the usual case?

None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.
The usual case is one in which the effects of earlier castings become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

Does this check out? It seems so as there are many such spells in core including Nystul's magic Aura, Disguise Self, Alter Self, Polymorph, Hallucinatory Terrain, Baleful Polymorph, Seeming, Contingency, Veil, Forbiddance, Polymorph Any Object, Screen, and Shapechange.

Is Resist Energy one of these? No, because resistance to fire 10 is relevant when you have resistance to acid 10.