Celestial Brillance and Earth Reaver troubles

[hong]

Magus_Jerel, is that you?

Now look at the correct part. "Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths:"

An "effect" is not just a technical definition, but an English word. In this context, "same effect more than once" is clearly referring to whatever it is a spell does, regardless of the words of art used to define it within the technical framework of the ruleset. This should be obvious by how the rule EXPLICITLY uses words like "area" and "target" to indicate its intended scope.

Come up with a relevant rule for what you want to argue.

Are we having fun yet?

 

[da chicken]

Seems nonsensical to me to say that acid fog won't stack if it gets cast twice, but acid fog and incendiary cloud will -- even an acid substituted incendiary cloud. I'd consider it a general rule that damage always stacks.

 

[hong]

Seems nonsensical to me to say that acid fog won't stack if it gets cast twice, but acid fog and incendiary cloud will -- even an acid substituted incendiary cloud. I'd consider it a general rule that damage always stacks.

Welcome To The Wonderful World Of Magic. Have A Nice Day.

 

[Majere]

Have to say Im in the camp of :
"Buffs dont stack, damage does"

Why?
Because to me it makes perfectly logical sense that if I use delayed fireballs to have 3/4 fireballs go off at once you are going to take more damage than just setting off one fireball. But Hong is suggesting I dont. However if by hongs interpretation I use fire,cold,acid,sonic "fire"balls I do get full damage ?
To me this seems to much of a complication and unintuative.
In them same way, if one hand is being melted by a malfs acid arrow, and then I get hit by another, the first one doesnt stop burning my flesh, I just get melted in two different places at the same time.
Personally I dont see how letting damage effects stack is over powering EXCEPT in the case of this spell, and as this spell is already broken maybe its the spell that need changing and not the interpretation of the rules ?

Majere

 

[hong]

Have to say Im in the camp of :
"Buffs dont stack, damage does"

Why?
Because to me it makes perfectly logical sense that if I use delayed fireballs to have 3/4 fireballs go off at once you are going to take more damage than just setting off one fireball. But Hong is suggesting I dont.

Hong is suggesting no such thing. A delayed blast fireball is, for all purposes, a fireball except that you can delay its detonation by up to 5 rounds. A fireball is an instantaneous effect, and so would be a delayed fireball. Stacking/overlapping doesn't come into play with instantaneous effects, because they are instantaneous.

However if by hongs interpretation I use fire,cold,acid,sonic "fire"balls I do get full damage ?

Wrong. You have ten minutes to figure out why.

To me this seems to much of a complication and unintuative.

Isn't it amazing how so many problems can be fixed by getting the rules right?

In them same way, if one hand is being melted by a malfs acid arrow, and then I get hit by another, the first one doesnt stop burning my flesh, I just get melted in two different places at the same time.

It's magic.

Personally I dont see how letting damage effects stack is over powering

Irrelevant.

EXCEPT in the case of this spell, and as this spell is already broken maybe its the spell that need changing and not the interpretation of the rules ?

Nobody is changing the interpretation of the rules.

 

[Majere]

I didnt attack you in anyway in your post, hong so please grow up a little bit and lets at least pretend you are civilized enough to be polite.
No my interpretation may not be by the rules
But I like it more than yours
So Im going to play that way
And Ive given you my reasons why Im going to play that way

Just because its written in a book doesnt mean its right, thats why 3.5 was even printed, thats why people release erratas. Sometimes things dont make sense, or rules are badly written, or even plain wrong. And even if they are just how they are ment to be, the game is just that. A game, not law.

So please get of your high horse, and in the words of thumper:
If you cant say anything nice, dont say anything at all

Majere

 

[hong]

So please get of your high horse, and in the words of thumper:
If you cant say anything nice, dont say anything at all

But that would be so boring.

 

[Scion]

The quote he gave is talking about a completely seperate part of the game.

Damage from two melfs on one creature will deal damage just as well as having one melf and one other spell that is just like melfs but not called melfs and as one melfs and one ice storm.

Damage always 'stacks', it isnt a 'penalty'. Unless someone can come up with an actual rule that talks about this then that is simply how it is. Damage, even from multiple spells of the same name, in the same area, will stack with all other damages in the same area.

 

[James McMurray]

What Scion said.

Bonuses and penalties from a spell do not stack. Damage is neither of those. In fact, I'd be surprised if you cold even find a reference to the word "stack" being applied to damage anywhere in the rules. The stacking rules are for bonuses and penalties only.

 

[Jhulae]

and what about earth reaver on page 65 of savages species ??
there are some faq about this spell ?? cause it's really stronger than
ice storm

Earth reaver is fine, even with the expanding radius of damage.

It's fixed dice, so damage doesn't increase as level increases. 4d6 is fire based I believe, which, as someone pointed out, is one of the most common resistances.

Also, since it's 'Earth Reaver' if your target or targets aren't on the ground, they're not affected by it (which is why targets have to make a ref save or fall down). Generous DMs could say the fire damage shoots up 5 or 10', but with our DM, if they're not on the ground, they're not affected at all, making the spell useless against a lot of flying/levitating monsters. Ice storm hits all of those.