Multiple spells with differing effects

[AnimeTheCat]

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]

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 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]

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]

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 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]

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 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:

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

[Darg]

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 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:

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]

...

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

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.