Would multiple Acid Arrows stack...

[Majere]

The rule that says you need room to move for a Reflex save is under the Evasion description.

The rule that says magic items produce spell-like effects is under item saving throws.

The rule that says you can use two crossbows is under the crossbow description, not in the combat chapter.

When it comes to the D&D rules, context is meaningless.

Point me to where it says that two Melfs hurt more.

Reflex saves are relevent to evasion, because evasion only applies to reflex saves.
The exact form of the effect is relevent to saving throws.
The fact you can two use crossbows is relevent to crossbows.

The rule that states effects of two continuous spells, only the greater is effected, is under a sestion on spell buffs.
Therefore this rule is relevent to spell buffs.

Actually all the examples you put down are exactly in context. And your argument is spurious. Context is never meaningless, just look at the spell descriptions, if context were meaningless then EVERY rule in EVERY spell description would apply to EVERY spell, because by your intpretation that fact they are listed under a spell name is irrelevent. Clearly this is nonsense.

Majere

 

[hong]

Reflex saves are relevent to evasion, because evasion only applies to reflex saves.

I have no idea what point you're making. The issue is whether something that applies to all Reflex saves should be listed under a section pertaining to a small subset of Reflex saves (those people with evasion).

Similarly, I find it totally unsurprising that something pertaining to a general situation (spell effects in general) should be found in a section pertaining to a specific situation (bonuses and penalties stacking).

The exact form of the effect is relevent to saving throws.

Again, the issue is whether something pertaining to all items is something that should be listed under a section pertaining to a small subset of items (those with saves).

The fact you can two use crossbows is relevent to crossbows.

But it's not exactly where you'd expect to find info on using TWF with crossbows, now is it?

The rule that states effects of two continuous spells, only the greater is effected, is under a sestion on spell buffs.
Therefore this rule is relevent to spell buffs.

This rule is relevant to spell buffs. As worded however, it's _also_ relevant to spell effects in general.

Look at the section. It refers to things like haste not making you go faster, which is entirely irrelevant to the issue of stacking bonuses and penalties. Heck, it even refers to polymorph, which doesn't involve "stacking" at all. The section quite clearly is referring to magical effects in general, not just the narrow issue of stacking bonuses and penalties.

If they wanted to refer only to bonuses and penalties, they would have worded it as something along the lines of "if two or more identical spells provide a bonus but at different strengths, only the best one applies". They didn't. The language is general.

Actually all the examples you put down are exactly in context. And your argument is spurious. Context is never meaningless, just look at the spell descriptions, if context were meaningless then EVERY rule in EVERY spell description would apply to EVERY spell, because by your intpretation that fact they are listed under a spell name is irrelevent. Clearly this is nonsense.

What on earth are you going on about?

 

[dcollins]

Actually, at this point I'd have to say that hong's argument is pretty convincing to me (which is not how I first thought). The key quote isn't entirely out of a stacking-bonuses-context, because further down it also talks about polymorph other and charm person. Also, the similar issues about what to do in two acid fogs or two walls of fire are compelling.

At this point I'd give the target of two ongoing melf's acid arrows the higher damage from two rolls each round. (This is one I could easily see the Sage counter-ruling, however, since it's a bit counterintuitive.)

 

[Darklone]

Isn't there a ruling in the FAQ that damage always stacks?

 

[hong]

Isn't there a ruling in the FAQ that damage always stacks?

Ooh, let me get out the Skip-agrees-with-me-therefore-I'm-right and Skip-disagrees-with-me-therefore-he's-wrong hats. It's been some time since we got to play with them.

 

[Scion]

Of course this quote is in the same section as the one hong posted:

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 we have the same effect with different results. The effects are all applied to the target (they take the damage) but only the biggest one is counted for other effects (ie they will take damage from each melfs acid arrow but only the biggest will count towards continuous damage concentration checks).

Easy enough. The creature will take damage from all of them (2 + 4 + 3 = 9 damage to the target with the 3 acid arrows on him) but only the biggest counts towards anything else (+2 to continuous damage concentration dc checks).

 

[FireLance]

As currently written, I'd allow the effects to stack. (Melf's) Acid Arrow has the line "Effect: One arrow of acid". Two such spells create two arrows of acid, and each arrow deals 2d4 points of damage. As a comparison, consider the spell (Mordenkainen's) Faithful Hound. It has the line "Effect: Phantom watchdog". If a wizard were to cast two such spells, would you argue that only one could attack any particular target each round?

Now, if Acid Arrow had a "Target:" line, then I'd agree that the effects would not stack, and the spellcaster would roll twice and take the better result. A spell of this nature would be Heat Meat, with the line "Target: Metal equipment of one creature per two levels, ..."

Now, cloud, fog and wall spells usually have an "Effect:" line as well, so by the same argument, I would allow the effects to stack. However, spells that have an "Area:" line instead would not, such as (Evard's) Black Tentacles.

This is based on my interpretation of the design considerations behind why some spells have an "Effect:" line and others have a "Target:" or "Area:" line.

 

[apsuman]

Nobody is talking about "stacking" anything, except those who have misunderstood the question. The rule in question doesn't talk about stacking, bonuses, or penalties at all. It's a general rule for the general situation: like effects overlap.



Do you let being hit by two cloudkills drain twice as much Con?

How about being caught in two acid fogs?

Two incendiary clouds?



"Instantaneous effects: Two or more spells with instantaneous durations work cumulatively when they affect the same target." -- PHB p.172.

But according to your logic, if my super fast monk were to run through 3 cloudkills in one round to get to the BBEG, he would only take con damage one time.

So, the answer to your question is, yes, I could see the situation where a character takes twice as much con damage from cloudkill spells. If the creature were a huge worm (or anything that is really long) and his head and his tail were in the effect of (different castings) of say wall of fire, I would have him take damage two times.

Here's a question for you, Sol the summoner casts summon monster 1 for a celestial owl on round 1 and another on round 2, and in round 3 they both attack the same target and they roll high enough to hit. Does the target only take damage from one of them?

 

[mhd]

Okay, I've seen the errors of my ways and repent. Can anyone show me the way to Canossa?

I could reach for the rainbow and claim that the damage -- while being inflicted over several rounds -- is actually instantaneous, even if the duration of the spell isn't, but that would be nitpicking and would result in allowing an Acid Cloud to stack, too. There's nothing mechanicaly that really distinguishes an Acid Cloud and Melf for a single target, so any ruling to one would apply to the other one.

The thought which lead most to us into thinking that it would stack is probably the picture we have in our minds, i.e. that 'there always enough space for another acid splash' (as opposed to being engulfed in acid (vapour)). But then, follow that picture and you have some bad acid scars. After all those Melfs and Fireballs, your party wouldn't look that dashing anymore

If a DM really thinks that this really decreases the efficacy of the spell, one could always rule that the first 2d4 is the immediate damage (thus instantaneous) and just the following residual acid damage doesn't stack. Thus casting two MAA's in following rounds would do 4d4 points more damage (2d4 for the initial splash, 2d4 for the last round). Whether that's worthwile...

Or let it stack if it disturbs you that acid on your back makes you invulnerable to acid on your front side -- which isn't even that ridiculous, as quite some of the damage is shock and if you're hurtin' enough already...

 

[Barak]

Of course they "stack" (although the term stack is a bit out of place here), the same way two Bleeding wounds "stack". And the quote by Hong, although it serves well to explain why two Cloudkills don't "stack" is irrelevant here, since the creature stuck by Melf's invention is not affected by a spell directly, but by the effect of the spell, which is to create an "acid arrow". In pretty much the same way that two Creature Summoning I can bring two Celestial Dogs into being.