Multiple spells with differing effects

[sreservoir]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Here is the format:

Spoiler

Show

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]

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.



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.



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.



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?

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 part

[Darg]

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]

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? 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]

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

[Aracor]

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 part

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.

[Aracor]

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? 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]

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]

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 and repeated it in post 52 for Segev.

[Aracor]

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]

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

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.

[Darg]

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]

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]

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.

[Gruftzwerg]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Segev]

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]

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]

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.