"Overlap" meaning

[Seppo87]

Is there anywhere a clear definition of the term "overlapping"?

I believe this means "does not stack" but I cannot be sure because I can't find a source.



In 3.5 "overlap" was often followed by "(does not stack)" but it's not the case here.

Is the term "overlap" defined, anywhere, in pathfinder?

[Ethereal Gears]

I'm not sure if I've read it clearly defined anywhere, but I've never had anyone use it to mean anything other than, precisely, "does not stack". If two bonuses overlap, rather than stack, then only the highest of the two bonuses applies.

For example, in the Glossary in the CRB, in the section on SR, it says: "Spell resistance does not stack, but rather overlaps."

Now, that's obviously not a specific definition of the term itself, but very strongly indicates that is exactly what the word means in a PF rules context.

[Segev]

Yeah, I don't think it's a specific system term in the sense that it gets a glossary (re)definition, but it is used very consistently to refer to bonuses which do not stack with each other. What is the specific case you're looking at? It's very likely that it means exactly that if the context is related to bonuses.

[Seppo87]

It was about the Spell Warrior and magic weapons.
Someone in the party asked if "overlap" meant "stack" or the opposite.
We know bonuses of the same name don't stack but if by chance "overlap" actually meant "stack" it would be an exception and therefore it would stack regardless.

Talking about Spell Warrior, I have another question.

The limit of weapons affected in the paragraph:
The maximum bonus gained is based upon the number of weapons affected: +5 to one weapon, +4 to two weapons, +3 to three weapons, or +2 to four or more weapons

is an absolute limit or a per character limit?

In case it's absolute, isn't it a little, uh, weak?

[Segev]

Is "Spell Warrior" a spell? I don't know enough context to answer your second question regarding whether it's weak or not.


"Overlap" never means "stack."

[squiggit]

Spell Warrior is a skald archetype. In particular it has the ability to grant weapon properties to nearby allies.


I think in that particular case, overlap does mean stack. Given that the text says

these enhancement bonuses and special abilities overlap with any enhancements or special abilities the weapon already has, though duplicate special abilities do not stack.

Only duplicates don't stack. You can't make a flaming flaming longsword, but you could add flaming to a weapon that isn't flaming beforehand.

Overlap in this case just means that if you use it on an already magic weapon it doesn't replace its magic properties.

[Segev]

Spell Warrior is a skald archetype. In particular it has the ability to grant weapon properties to nearby allies.


I think in that particular case, overlap does mean stack. Given that the text says Only duplicates don't stack. You can't make a flaming flaming longsword, but you could add flaming to a weapon that isn't flaming beforehand.

Overlap in this case just means that if you use it on an already magic weapon it doesn't replace its magic properties.

I see the confusion, yeah. Holy cow, that's awful writing.

[Yanisa]

Overlap is a rare term, rarely named and even in rarer cases explained! Yeah get that... but whatever.

The best example comes from the Protection from Energy and Resist Energy spells, which explain how this specific overlap works. One is used up before the other. Many other cases will at least drop the "does not stack" line and with the dictionary definition you might infer how overlap might work.

Then there are worst cases like our Spell Warrior and the Lion Blade. The latter does not even include the "does not stack" part, but is 3.5 Paizo material so nothing is lost here. I have seen a lot more (stupid) cases but nothing worth mentioning and nothing offering a good definition.

Speaking bout 3.5, that one has a definition and by the nature of Pathfinder it should be applicable in all Pathfinder games. Though beware for people that want to play "pure" pathfinder without any 3.5 backwards compatibility.

Overlap

Coexist with another effect or modifier in the same area or on the same target. Bonuses that do not stack with each other overlap instead, such that only the largest bonus provides its benefit.

Source: PHB

Doesn't help with Spell Warrior, I guess?
Edit: Seriously, how does one infer which is the largest bonus between a "+1 flaming"-enchantment and a "+2"-enchantment.

That's all I got.

[Psyren]

Edit: Seriously, how does one infer which is the largest bonus between a "+1 flaming"-enchantment and a "+2"-enchantment.

It's not hard. If you bestow +2 onto a +1 flaming weapon, the end result is a +2 flaming weapon. You get the larger of the two enhancements (overlaps without stacking) and then the flaming gets retained. Similarly, if you bestow "+2 flaming" onto a +1 weapon, the end result is a +2 flaming weapon - just like before.

[Yanisa]

It's not hard. If you bestow +2 onto a +1 flaming weapon, the end result is a +2 flaming weapon. You get the larger of the two enhancements (overlaps without stacking) and then the flaming gets retained. Similarly, if you bestow "+2 flaming" onto a +1 weapon, the end result is a +2 flaming weapon - just like before.

I agree that is how it should work, but with the glossary meaning of 3.5 that doesn't really work.

Let's replace the word overlap for the glossary in the spell warrior ability.
"These enhancement bonuses and special abilities do not stack with any enhancements or special abilities the weapon already has, only the largest bonus provides its benefit ... "

But then again I don't think anyone will take it this literally.

Then again again Spell Warrior is plainly written wrong. Special abilities in this case stack and do not overlap, only duplicates do not stack. The overlap is only in the enchantment bonus.

[Larsen]

Specials abilities don't stack in the example.


If you combine +1 flaming (1d6) ghost touch with +3 flaming(1d6)

Full stacking would mean: +4 flaming(2d6) ghost touch

Overlaps mean: +3 flaming(1d6) ghost touch

[Psyren]

I agree that is how it should work, but with the glossary meaning of 3.5 that doesn't really work.

Let's replace the word overlap for the glossary in the spell warrior ability.
"These enhancement bonuses and special abilities do not stack with any enhancements or special abilities the weapon already has, only the largest bonus provides its benefit ... "

But then again I don't think anyone will take it this literally.

Then again again Spell Warrior is plainly written wrong. Special abilities in this case stack and do not overlap, only duplicates do not stack. The overlap is only in the enchantment bonus.

Why is the 3.5 glossary remotely relevant here? This is a PF ability and a PF thread.

In PF, overlap simply means "go with the highest numerical bonus rather than adding them, and go with only one instance of each non-numerical bonus instead of stacking them."

Also, Larsen's example is correct. See, not difficult.

[Yanisa]

Why is the 3.5 glossary remotely relevant here? This is a PF ability and a PF thread.

Because there is no pathfinder definition at all, that's the entire point of this thread. The question was: "Is there there a definition of overlap in pathfinder?" and the answer is ""No". I nor anyone else has found the definition in Pathfinder so far.

Hence I resorted to the 3.5 meaning to give some sort of definition. Pathfinder can still be views as a set of house rules to the 3.5 system and backward compatibility is still a thing. It's better then making up your own definition.

[Psyren]

Because there is no pathfinder definition at all, that's the entire point of this thread. The question was: "Is there there a definition of overlap in pathfinder?" and the answer is ""No". I nor anyone else has found the definition in Pathfinder so far.

Hence I resorted to the 3.5 meaning to give some sort of definition. Pathfinder can still be views as a set of house rules to the 3.5 system and backward compatibility is still a thing. It's better then making up your own definition.

It's not better to go back when the conclusion it leads you to makes no sense. But even using the definition you posted, I can arrive at the right answer without the apparent misreading going on.

To quote your own substitution:

"These enhancement bonuses and special abilities do not stack with any enhancements or special abilities the weapon already has, only the largest bonus provides its benefit ... "

Emphasis mine - if the weapon already has flaming then the overlap ability won't give it flaming a second time, exactly as we'd rationally expect. But if the weapon does not already have flaming, it can get flaming. That's not stacking - it's giving it something that's not already there to begin with. Then you go to the numerical enhancements, and "only the largest bonus provides its benefit." Done and done.