Multiple Fast Healing abilities from different source

[Slaved]

I did not say stacks I said concurrently. If there is no rule saying that they do not work at the same time why should they not? It is not like balance will be thrown out the window and if we go to the much lambasted Common Sense a creature who heals fast who is given an ability to fast might just heal faster than before.

Everyone can play however they like in their own games. I was just asking for Rules in the Rules Forum.

 

[moritheil]

I did not say stacks I said concurrently. If there is no rule saying that they do not work at the same time why should they not? It is not like balance will be thrown out the window and if we go to the much lambasted Common Sense a creature who heals fast who is given an ability to fast might just heal faster than before.

Everyone can play however they like in their own games. I was just asking for Rules in the Rules Forum.

I'm asking what the difference is, or if the difference amounts to semantics. If you are adding fast healing 2 and fast healing 3 and stating that the creature heals 5 hit points/round but it is somehow not fast healing 5 then I would like to know what basis you are claiming for that assertion. As I said before: how is this not fast healing 5 that you are talking about?

No one has said you cannot play however you like. You have asked for rules interpretations and there are over two pages of people giving you rules interpretations. Clearly, you don't like those rules interpretations, since you still refuse to agree with them but do not present cogent arguments or specific examples to the contrary.

 

[Thurbane]

Everyone can play however they like in their own games. I was just asking for Rules in the Rules Forum.

...and as people keep telling you, there is no 100% airtight evidence to support either case (although conventional wisdom, from everyone who has contributed, is that they don't stack). What people here have been doing all through this thread is giving their opinions of how the rules would be interpreted, in lieu of any definitive statements in the RAW.

You seem to be advocating that they should stack, so why not let them stack in your games? Are you the DM, or a player - if you are the DM, make a ruling and stick with it; if you are a player, run it by your DM and ask him for a ruling.

If you want an "official" answer, I would suggest you try contacting WotC and ask them for a ruling...maybe "Ask the Sage" or CustServ.

 

[irdeggman]

I did not say stacks I said concurrently. If there is no rule saying that they do not work at the same time why should they not? It is not like balance will be thrown out the window and if we go to the much lambasted Common Sense a creature who heals fast who is given an ability to fast might just heal faster than before.

And what does work concurrently mean then?

That is the basis of the argument being used here I believe.

Concurrent effects have been translated into "layered" or only the best counts at the time by WotC on numerous occasions.

So using that logic and rules basis (and official interpretation) how can a different meaning for "concurrently" be derived?

 

[Herzog]

I think I'm with Slaved here.... (yay! minority of two!)... in that I am not convinced of either side, and would like to find a specific rule.

What I think he means by 'concurrently but not stacking' is the following:

Suppose you are healed by two cleric's, both casting CLW at exactly the same time.
The two spell effects do not 'stack' in any sense of the word.
however, both effects take place normally, for a total of 2d8+(CL,max+5)+(CL,max+5) hitpoints healed.

The same could be the case for Fast Healing.

The question is whether you can have multiple instances of Fast Healing.
If you get Fast Healing 2 from one source, and Fast Healing 3 from another source (both specifically saying they don't stack for argument's sake) then do you have Fast Healing 3, or do you have Fast Healing 2 AND Fast Healing 3?

If you have DR 2/- and DR 10/adamantine, you can have both, but they don't stack. Against non-adamantine, you would effectively have DR 10. against adamantine, you would have DR 2.

Herzog

 

[irdeggman]

Suppose you are healed by two cleric's, both casting CLW at exactly the same time.
The two spell effects do not 'stack' in any sense of the word.
however, both effects take place normally, for a total of 2d8+(CL,max+5)+(CL,max+5) hitpoints healed.

Except that condition can never occur.

No two actions happen at the same time (per the rules). Well at least not 2 characters casting a spell at the same time as per your example (there are a few specific things that are contrary to this, but they are all spelled out specifically).

So, there are no examples of how this can occur in the rules and yet plenty of examples of how WotC views "concurrently" - which all indicate the opposite (that is they layer but do not "stack" or go into effect at the same time).

Preponderance of evidence I say.

 

[Bad Paper]

i can think of an example where they would stack

(I skipped a dozen or so posts in this thread, so please forgive me if I am restating what someone else said.)

Something with fast healing on the positive energy plane would stack. So a five-headed hydra would get 15 from its own metabolism and another 5 from the plane. To rule otherwise misses the point of Extraordinary fast healing.

A vampire on the positive energy plane would get fast healing 0, because of 5 from its connection to the negative energy plane, and 5 from the harsh environment of the positive energy plane. Any other (overlapping) ruling would screw this up.

I don't think that two kinds of Ex fast healing should stack. Ex and Su fast healing, though, would possibly stack.

 

[Slaved]

I'm asking what the difference is, or if the difference amounts to semantics. If you are adding fast healing 2 and fast healing 3 and stating that the creature heals 5 hit points/round but it is somehow not fast healing 5 then I would like to know what basis you are claiming for that assertion. As I said before: how is this not fast healing 5 that you are talking about?

If your character is healed by a Cure Light Wounds spell for 6 points of damage two rounds in a row and has Fast Healing 1 did they have Fast Healing 7 for those two rounds? I would say no but by what you have just said then you might see it that way or are trying to imply that I would.

Healing 2 points of damage and then healing 3 points of damage is almost always the same as healing 5 if those healings are close enough together but that does not mean that they came from the same source of healing or that they stack or that they do not stack or that they did not come from the same source or anything else.

 

[Slaved]

And what does work concurrently mean then?

That is the basis of the argument being used here I believe.

Concurrent effects have been translated into "layered" or only the best counts at the time by WotC on numerous occasions.

So using that logic and rules basis (and official interpretation) how can a different meaning for "concurrently" be derived?

It means that they can work at the same time. Stacking implies Directly Additive in the rules.

I believe that quite often damage is assumed to work concurrently when applicable and so the reverse of it would be logical to assume the same except where noted. Fast Healing does not note that it does not work this way and in fact says that it works like Natural Healing except where otherwise noted.

 

[Slaved]

I think I'm with Slaved here.... (yay! minority of two!)... in that I am not convinced of either side, and would like to find a specific rule.

Yay!