Would multiple Acid Arrows stack...

[NPC]

Does the fact the Melf's is a "Spell Resistance: No" add anything here? Maybe the arrow isn't a spell when it hits the target? It's acutally a glob of physical acid that takes a few rounds to soak into the skin?

 

[dcollins]

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...

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, ..."

That's a good argument.

 

[hong]

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.

It should be fairly clear from the context (HAW HAW) that I was talking about two cloudkills occupying the same space, not in different locations.

 

[apsuman]

It should be fairly clear from the context (HAW HAW) that I was talking about two cloudkills occupying the same space, not in different locations.

But, but the strict interpretation of the rule you mentioned previous my monk would not take con damage more than once.

You can't really be saying that the context has any influence on how the rules are interpreted can you? Ater all somebody in this thread tried to say that when it comes to the D&D rules, context is meaningless.

 

[hong]

But, but the strict interpretation of the rule you mentioned previous my monk would not take con damage more than once.

You can't really be saying that the context has any influence on how the rules are interpreted can you? Ater all somebody in this thread tried to say that when it comes to the D&D rules, context is meaningless.

Dear apsuman,

Who's the designated troll in this thread, you or me?

 

[Barak]

It also is neat to see that under that same interpretation of the rule that would make two acid arrows not "stack", some poor schmuck who somehow finds himself crushed under two Wall of Irons would only feel the weight of one. Weird, huh?

 

[hong]

It also is neat to see that under that same interpretation of the rule that would make two acid arrows not "stack", some poor schmuck who somehow finds himself crushed under two Wall of Irons would only feel the weight of one. Weird, huh?

Look up the duration of wall of iron.

 

[Barak]

Oh I know it's instantaneous without looking. But why let that stop us? We don't let the fact that the victim of two Melf's acid arrows doesn't qualify as being under the effect of multiple spells (since the arrows themselves are the effect, and the target is simply affected by arrows of acid, not spells) stop us from making them not stack, after all.

 

[hong]

Oh I know it's instantaneous without looking. But why let that stop us?

Because there is a specific rule for instantaneous effects.

We don't let the fact that the victim of two Melf's acid arrows doesn't qualify as being under the effect of multiple spells (since the arrows themselves are the effect, and the target is simply affected by arrows of acid, not spells) stop us from making them not stack, after all.

I think everyone just didn't notice at first that acid arrow has effect: arrow as opposed to target: creature, which is what got this whole shebang rolling.

 

[apsuman]

Because there is a specific rule for instantaneous effects.



I think everyone just didn't notice at first that acid arrow has effect: arrow as opposed to target: creature, which is what got this whole shebang rolling.

Oh, no, I noticed all right.

I assumed that you did too Hong.