Multiple Fast Healing abilities from different source

[moritheil]

That section on Stacking obviously does not apply.

A matter of opinion, which I have acknowledged from the start. Broadly speaking, though, you must agree that you have presented no evidence that fast healing is intended to be different in principle from other defensive benefits (which numerous other posters, and I myself, have mentioned.)

The quote you gave earlier about the Paragon supports what I have said.

No, it very much does not. I have explained twice now and each time rather than countering any of my assertions specifically you have simply ignored what I said and claimed it supports what you said. You have also continued to ignore the DR (doesn't stack) and SR (doesn't stack) examples of the nonstacking principle, and are still ignoring them without addressing them. DR and SR are also excellent examples in how they are specifically called out as nonstacking, but that does not mean that things automatically stack if the clause is excluded.

If you aren't interested in discussing the mechanics behind the rules, I can respect that. If you say so up front we can save a lot of time.

 

[Slaved]

A matter of opinion? The section is about modifiers to rolls and checks! Fast Healing does neither!

 

[moritheil]

A matter of opinion? The section is about modifiers to rolls and checks! Fast Healing does neither!

It is your opinion that the principle of things does not stacking does not apply. However, I have presented evidence that there is such a principle in general, and it is reflected at other places within the rules.

 

[Slaved]

For specific sets so far we have the Fast Healing rules which do not specify directly. We also have the rules for Damage Reduction and Spell Resistance as rules which do not fall under the normal Stacking clause and they do specify that they do not Stack. In addition we have the Paragon Template which states that it does not stack with other Fast Healing. Then we have the Evolved Undead template which does not specify.

That is good enough to assume preliminarily that multiple Fast Healing effects might be able to work concurrently.

 

[moritheil]

For specific sets so far we have the Fast Healing rules which do not specify directly. We also have the rules for Damage Reduction and Spell Resistance as rules which do not fall under the normal Stacking clause and they do specify that they do not Stack. In addition we have the Paragon Template which states that it does not stack with other Fast Healing. Then we have the Evolved Undead template which does not specify.

That is good enough to assume preliminarily that multiple Fast Healing effects might be able to work concurrently.

How so?

DR and SR do not stack and specify so. This is a good thing for the argument that there is a general principle of nonstacking for two reasons:

1. They are examples that don't stack.
2. Even though they do specifically call out that they don't stack, there are other things that don't stack that do not call it out. We therefore have examples that calling things out does NOT imply that the general principle is contrary. If it were not for DR and SR then your "called example" distinction might be a valid argument that fast healing automatically stacks because it is not called out. But with DR and SR we see that it is arbitrary whether or not it is called out.

 

[Slaved]

What things do not stack that are not mentioned in the rules?

 

[moritheil]

What things do not stack that are not mentioned in the rules?

Careful. I do not say they are not mentioned in the rules, only that they need not be specifically called out in their individual entries as nonstacking in order to be nonstacking.

For the general principle, see this:

Bonus Types

Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don’t generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus works (see Combining Magical Effects, below). The same principle applies to penalties—a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

For specific sets so far we have the Fast Healing rules which do not specify directly. We also have the rules for Damage Reduction and Spell Resistance as rules which do not fall under the normal Stacking clause and they do specify that they do not Stack. In addition we have the Paragon Template which states that it does not stack with other Fast Healing. Then we have the Evolved Undead template which does not specify.

Don't you love how he conveniently leaves off the list an example of a monster with the Evolved Undead template applied where fast healing does not stack.

At this point, I think Slaved is trolling. He just really, really wants to believe it stacks but can't provide a ruling to support that. All the evidence we do have is to the contrary but unless/until he sees something that negates his position in black and white nothing will be good enough for him.

I think we all pretty much know the score here. I'm outtie.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Hey.. thanks for this thread!

I found out that I have been running Fast Healing wrong

Fast Healing
A creature with fast healing can remove 1 lethal hit and 1 nonlethal hit per round per 5 points of fast healing (minimum 1 hit of each type). For example, a vampire spawn has fast healing 2; it can therefore eliminate 1 hit and 1 nonlethal hit per round.

A creature with fast healing may add its fast healing value to Fortitude saves made to become stable when dying. A dying vampire spawn, for example, gets a +2 bonus on its Fortitude saves to become stable.

Which makes this conversation even a bit weirder as there are two specfic mechanical effects. One provides a flat healing of damage per point of fast healing. This ability looks like it could stack as the Slaved hopes.
The second provides a '+' to Fort saves. This ablity definatly would not stack per the usual stacking rules.


So.. using the RAW, Slaved's character who gains two versions of Fast Healing 2 would heal 1 point of damage per round and gain a +2 for Fort checks to stabilize

However the OP's character having Fast Healing 5 and gaining an additional Fast Healing 1 would benefit from healing 2 points of damage a round and have +5 to the Fort save...

My suggested Vampire with 8 levels of Warlock + 3 Evolved Undead would only heal 3 points of damage each round...and would not worry about the Fort save to stabilize anyway.
[sidetrek]Slaved, I don't know about you...but to me a challenge is more than just how many hit dice the critter has. I don't often run Vampires against my group unless its in a Ravenloft game...where the group expect to lose 2 or 3 PCs in the couse of an adventure....If Fast Healing 15 was healing 15 points of damage each round as I originally thought...ouch![/sidetrek]

Finally. No. THe designers did not specifically call out in the rules whether Fast Healing stacks or not. There simply is not enough room in the rules book or enough time in the game development process to cover every detail. This is why they publish the principles and design/development stuff...so that GMs can better interpret the intent and use extrapolation to cover the details

Now that I see how Fast Healing works in RAW, I would have no problem with allowing the ability to stack for the 'healing' portion of it. However there are examples upthread where the ability has not been used as stacking in 'official' material.... so in my game it will continue to not stack {and may continue to heal the amount listed on the ability.... }

 

[Slaved]

Don't you love how he conveniently leaves off the list an example of a monster with the Evolved Undead template applied where fast healing does not stack.

I listed the things which have a source I can find to support them. I do not know which Dungeon you are referring to nor do I know if Dungeon is generally accepted to follow the rules. I do know that the Dragon Magazine put out unbalanced options very often.

There have been incorrect Monster Entries in the past in multiple sources. If the only proof for non Concurrency in Fast Healing is a single Monster Statistics Block in a magazine that does not qualify as substantial proof to me.