Question about Stacking of positive energy aura of Vivacious creatures.

[Dozen]

I'd be OK having a creature on the positive energy plane getting fast healing 6 for being within range of a vivacious creature, although I think it'd be more likely to get fast healing 5 since the two instances of fast healing are essentially from the same source. What doesn't appeal to me is for them to get fast healing 25 for being within 20 vivacious creatures.

It's fine to prefer an instance to the other, but then I ask: Where did the remaining energy go if the effect doesn't 'stack'? Surely there has to be a logically sound explanation.

 

[Cleon]

It's fine to prefer an instance to the other, but then I ask: Where did the remaining energy go if the effect doesn't 'stack'? Surely there has to be a logically sound explanation.

Well expecting logic or even conservation of energy in D&D physics seems a bit optimistic, but if forced to handwave an explanation I'd say the energy doesn't go anywhere.

Imagine each Vivacious Creature has an energy aura with a unique "resonance" of some sort that is incompatible with the auras of any other Vivacious Creature. If a creature gets too close, it absorbs positive energy from whichever of the Vivacious Creature's auras it has the "strongest resonance" with. The positive energy in the other Vivacious Creatures simply remains in their individual auras.

 

[Cleon]

Anyhow, that'll have to be it for my contribution to this thread, 'cause I've run out of time.

I hope Killem2 finds our debate useful.

 

[Dozen]

Imagine each Vivacious Creature has an energy aura with a unique "resonance" of some sort that is incompatible with the auras of any other Vivacious Creature. If a creature gets too close, it absorbs positive energy from whichever of the Vivacious Creature's auras it has the "strongest resonance" with. The positive energy in the other Vivacious Creatures simply remains in their individual auras.

So it basically boils down to the same conflict deific auras have. I see. That makes sense.

I hope Killem2 finds our debate useful.

I sure hope so too! I wonder whose he'll pick in the end. We've both made compelling arguments.

 

[Sage Genesis]

I sure hope so too! I wonder whose he'll pick in the end. We've both made compelling arguments.

He is almost certainly on the "they stack" side of things. He asked the same question on RPGnet and said there that his DM thinks they won't stack, with the implication that he dislikes that. He is probably looking for rules-savvy people to help him find out if they might stack after all.

 

[killem2]

I actually started on giant in the play ground and at first got nothing after 1 day of waiting which is extremely rare there, so I figured, shot gun blast the question everywhere I can find and see what people say.

My issue is this:

This is NOT fast healing. If it was fast healing it would say fast healing. It is a super natural ability, to which makes no mention of it not stacking. When you go to Super Natural Abilities there is not clause there either that says same named super natural abilities do not stack either.

3rd, the stacking rules are also very clear in what they address, most of them say bonuses or penalties.

The only reason this came up is because my DM went right to fast healing at first, which, by RAW it isn't.

Damage reduction and spell resistance are core abilities that specifically come right out and say they don't stack.

Keep in mind, it isn't so outrageous that they can stack, considering you can explode. Your replies are indeed helping.

I don't "dislike" any choice my dm makes, he's my very good friend, I do however dislike not having clarity.

When I am the DM I would allow this.

It's not overtly powerful, for a summon monster chain, a wizard can't really get deadly use of it until around level 7 or 9 anyway, by that point, this healing isn't going to go a very long way.


I also sent him this link to read, and I sent him all the replies I have gotten so far good or bad. To me, I see no argument in this, it stacks, it's clear because it doesn't say it can't. Just like multiple wall of smokes or wall of fires stack, these should as well.

 

[Cleon]

This is NOT fast healing. If it was fast healing it would say fast healing. It is a super natural ability, to which makes no mention of it not stacking. When you go to Super Natural Abilities there is not clause there either that says same named super natural abilities do not stack either.

3rd, the stacking rules are also very clear in what they address, most of them say bonuses or penalties.

The only reason this came up is because my DM went right to fast healing at first, which, by RAW it isn't.

The power writeup says the Fortitude save works "as if in a positive-dominant environment". The rules for positive-dominant environment say they give fast healing. It also says that other vivacious creatures are not affected by this aura. Vivacious creatures are immune to the dangerous effects of a positive-dominant environment.

Given those facts, I think it's reasonable to say the burden of evidence is that Positive Energy Aura works more like fast healing (non-stacking) than cure light wounds (stacking).

Damage reduction and spell resistance are core abilities that specifically come right out and say they don't stack.

The question is should abilities default to be non-stacking or stacking if it doesn't say one way or another? There doesn't appear to be a specific rule in the SRD, but the general principal appears to be abilities from the same source or of the same type do not stack, but only the strongest applies.

Keep in mind, it isn't so outrageous that they can stack, considering you can explode. Your replies are indeed helping.

The risk of explosion is minimal. The rate of fast healing is fixed and fairly slow (1 hit point per round) and the vivacious creature can suppress it. It'd be a simple matter to step outside the aura when you're within a few hit points of full healing.

If it did stack, which I don't believe they should, a summoner can order some of the Vivacious Creatures to suppress their Auras and vary the fast healing rate. e.g. if they have 10 vivacious creatures they can start out with all ten emitting an Aura for fast healing 10, then cut down to fast healing 2 when they're close to healing one of the patients.

When I am the DM I would allow this.

Fine! I can see it going either way, although I prefer your DM's judgement that it's non-stacking.

It's not overtly powerful, for a summon monster chain, a wizard can't really get deadly use of it until around level 7 or 9 anyway, by that point, this healing isn't going to go a very long way.

A ninth level spellcaster could cast extended summon monster IV to summon 1d4+1 vivacious celestial owls for 18 rounds. Each produces a 10 ft. radius positive energy Aura.

A 10 ft. circle is enough space to fit 12 Medium sized creature in, or 24 if they crowd together. Eighteen rounds of fast healing 1 can produce 18 hit points of healing. If the Auras can stack, the 1d4+1 creatures mean the summoner could get 36-90 hit points of healing in total.

By contrasts, a ninth level spellcaster casting mass cure light wounds would cure up to nine creatures of 1d8+9 hit points apiece. That's a maximum of 17 hit points.

So a single vivacious creature summoned by a 9th level caster via an Extended summons spell can produce more healing for more patients than the same caster can create with a mass healing spell at the highest level they can cast. They could summon that single vivacious creature with an extended monster summoning II - a 3rd level spell, while mass cure light wounds is a 5th level spell. In addition to that, the vivacious creature can fight the summoner's foes and possibly cause them to explode.

To my mind that seems a trifle unbalanced.

I also sent him this link to read, and I sent him all the replies I have gotten so far good or bad. To me, I see no argument in this, it stacks, it's clear because it doesn't say it can't. Just like multiple wall of smokes or wall of fires stack, these should as well.

Can you quote a rule to that effect though? I prefer "it only stacks if it says it does". Frankly, unlimited stacking is rarely a good idea, so even if there is a rule in some obscure wizards.com FAQ that says Positive Energy Aura healing stacks I'd homebrew that away if it came up in a game I'm running.

Oh, and wall of smoke shouldn't stack. A creature walking through a pair of walls of smoke will need to make two Fortitude saves, but they are not nauseated for 2 rounds if they fail both saves - each wall can produce a round of nausea, but spell durations run concurrently, not in series. Similarly, no matter how many wall of smoke spells there are they only give normal concealment, the DM shouldn't roll a 20% concealment miss chance for each wall.

 

[Cleon]

Just to let you know I may not be replying to this thread, at least in the immediate future.

I've got a bunch of other stuff to do and I'm running out of time again.

Besides, I'm not sure how much more I've got to say.

It mostly boils down to "I like it non-stacking, but you're welcome to like it stacking" in the end.

 

[killem2]

The power writeup says the Fortitude save works "as if in a positive-dominant environment". The rules for positive-dominant environment say they give fast healing. It also says that other vivacious creatures are not affected by this aura. Vivacious creatures are immune to the dangerous effects of a positive-dominant environment.

Yes it says as though it were in the positive dominant enviroment, this is pretty clearly referring to to the fortitude save DC and what happens when it fails. It is one complete sentence.

Creatures that exceed their full normal hit points from this effect need to make Fortitude saves as if in a positive-dominant environment.

To construe that the entire ability is this way, is a bit off to me, because there is zero reason why it could not have said any creature with in this aura gains fast healing 1. That is a term, very black and white, it can be used, clearly wotc didn't want fast healing 1 here.

Given those facts, I think it's reasonable to say the burden of evidence is that Positive Energy Aura works more like fast healing (non-stacking) than cure light wounds (stacking).

You can't just assume rules are intended one way, when they are clearly written another. God knows WOTC is not the best at editing their own content to make sense and it has more typos than I have ever seen, but I don't think the would have wasted the extra lines of text when they could use an in game term such as Fast Healing X.

Keep in mind the only reason this came up for debate is because my DM thought I was talking about fast healing. I can see the confusion, but I also do not see the confusion after simply reading the text either.

The question is should abilities default to be non-stacking or stacking if it doesn't say one way or another? There doesn't appear to be a specific rule in the SRD, but the general principal appears to be abilities from the same source or of the same type do not stack, but only the strongest applies.

Wotc, took the time on a crap ton of Ex, Su, Spells, feats and so on, to state if they stack or not. Why would they do that, if they could have just as easily said NOTHING STACKS EVER. Unless. They didn't though. Even in the stacking entry when it is talking about bonuses, they give exceptions. Such as Dodge bonuses, synergy bonuses, and so on.

The risk of explosion is minimal. The rate of fast healing is fixed and fairly slow (1 hit point per round) and the vivacious creature can suppress it. It'd be a simple matter to step outside the aura when you're within a few hit points of full healing.

Does not change the fact it is there, and it is a downside and your enemies can take advantage of it just as easily as you can. A powerful wizard with a high spell craft could make a check or there could be a knowledge check about the creature so one would know what it is doing and CC the party in place. Dying is a pretty big deal.

If it did stack, which I don't believe they should, a summoner can order some of the Vivacious Creatures to suppress their Auras and vary the fast healing rate. e.g. if they have 10 vivacious creatures they can start out with all ten emitting an Aura for fast healing 10, then cut down to fast healing 2 when they're close to healing one of the patients.

Ok, tactics, what's wrong with that? It isn't like these creatures are gods exactly. One nasty aoe and they are going down, because to get 10 you are talking about either good rolls on the d4, or maximized/twinned? Basically its on the higher end of possibility and by that point enemies are not going to be push overs, and do you really want to waste your summon monster of that slot for healing? Depends. I would rather use it ooc, and in combat in dire needs. Like oh bob is at -5.

Fine! I can see it going either way, although I prefer your DM's judgement that it's non-stacking.

I don't, but not out of balancing issues, it is out of misunderstanding rules. I do not like crossing misunderstanding of rules with balance. I do not care for voting against players in the name of balance, just because there is a clear interpetation error going on.

A ninth level spellcaster could cast extended summon monster IV to summon 1d4+1 vivacious celestial owls for 18 rounds. Each produces a 10 ft. radius positive energy Aura.

A 10 ft. circle is enough space to fit 12 Medium sized creature in, or 24 if they crowd together. Eighteen rounds of fast healing 1 can produce 18 hit points of healing. If the Auras can stack, the 1d4+1 creatures mean the summoner could get 36-90 hit points of healing in total.

By contrasts, a ninth level spellcaster casting mass cure light wounds would cure up to nine creatures of 1d8+9 hit points apiece. That's a maximum of 17 hit points.

Those owls would be dead in one round easily at level 17. You think that shenanigan is going to go on further than that? I don't. While I agree it COULD be over the top, in practice I don't see it actually happening.

So a single vivacious creature summoned by a 9th level caster via an Extended summons spell can produce more healing for more patients than the same caster can create with a mass healing spell at the highest level they can cast. They could summon that single vivacious creature with an extended monster summoning II - a 3rd level spell, while mass cure light wounds is a 5th level spell. In addition to that, the vivacious creature can fight the summoner's foes and possibly cause them to explode.

To my mind that seems a trifle unbalanced.

To me, this just shows a problem with healing through out d&d 3.5.

Can you quote a rule to that effect though? I prefer "it only stacks if it says it does". Frankly, unlimited stacking is rarely a good idea, so even if there is a rule in some obscure wizards.com FAQ that says Positive Energy Aura healing stacks I'd homebrew that away if it came up in a game I'm running.

If you think it is a good idea to ban stacking of everything universally that's fine, it is usually address in areas where the creators of the game saw it may be a problem. (Look at improved critical/keen and so on from 3.0)

I also think it is very unhealthy to gaming to place the players in a constant need to prove the existance of a negative.

Oh, and wall of smoke shouldn't stack. A creature walking through a pair of walls of smoke will need to make two Fortitude saves, but they are not nauseated for 2 rounds if they fail both saves - each wall can produce a round of nausea, but spell durations run concurrently, not in series. Similarly, no matter how many wall of smoke spells there are they only give normal concealment, the DM shouldn't roll a 20% concealment miss chance for each wall.

But they don't roll the concealment twice out of some theory that it doesn't stack, they don't roll it because they are already in a smoke filled area. However, as you can see they do have to at least make a save for a chance to be nauseated, even if the first one hits and renders the next one pointless, at least it got a chance to increase the odds and effectiveness.

Which is why it was used an analogy to positive auras. You can't just tell one creature that is ability to heal has stopped working because there is another near by, if anything, by the very unstable d&d logic, I say unstable because trying to pin point logic in d&d is a dangerous thing, the very fabric of how powerful positive energy and the positive plane work insinuates that it does work together.

If you really want to put this to bed, take negative energy aura, instead of dying, you gain negative levels. You bet your ass you can gain more than one of those and they don't stop, because at the bottom of it you don't die, you become a wight. So why is it that the negative energy aura gets to apply itself over and over again, (look at every instance of negative levels), but when it comes to healing we have a double standard now?

Thanks for your replies, you bring up solid aspects to the debate, but I am sadly seeing them only under the reasoning of interpretation rather than a need to find a rule.

I guess when there is no rule in place you can RULE 0 it out, but then what you should be telling players is:

This does stack, but it is unbalanced to allow them to stack, so I won't allow it.

Even the spell positive energy aura doesn't ban stacking, and spells are usually very good at stopping anything that would be deemed outrageous.




To be clear, this is not debating the power of them stacking, or the balancing ramification of allowing it to stack. The only thing my DM and I were discussing was IF THEY STACK. Anything else really has no bearing here. It wouldn't matter if it said the creatures gain 500 points a round, if it stacks it stacks.

My fear is, that alot of people who are staying it does not stack, are doing so out of this order:


Look at question.

It does stack.

Thinks about problems this causes.

Tries to show rules to disable it from happening.

This is not answering a rules question, it is trying to balance under the guise of rules.

 

[killem2]

UPDATE: My DM got back with me, he says they will stack, only because he cannot find any hard rule that would say otherwise.

As far as balancing, he doesn't care if it stacks, enemies can abuse it too.