Multiple Resist Energies

[Ranes]

Patryn, you put forward a good case, as usual. It comes down to a semantic argument. And the semantics revolve around this:

"Same Effect with Differing Results"

If I make someone resistant to fire, is that the same as making someone resistant to cold? Is it the same effect?

Your interpretation is that it's the same effect, called 'resistance to energy'. Only the fire, cold or whatever 'result' is different. I get that and respect it.

Nevertheless, resistance to energy, can - I suggest - be considered nothing more than a spell name. You cannot cast resistance to energy without defining the energy type. Resist energy (fire) and protection from fire have different results and that, it could be argued, would subject them to the: 'Same Effect with Differing Results' rule.

You are not wrong. This, I think, is a classic case of the two despicable abbreviations RAW and RAI being guilty of exactly that which makes them despicable: i.e. more than one interpretation is entirely valid.

YMMV and all that.

 

[Vegepygmy]

The rules do not mandate that the spell effects must make each other irrelevant to fall under this rule. That's putting the cart before the horse. Rather, the fact that they fall under this rule makes them become irrelevant as an effect of their being the same spell applied multiple times.

I understand your reasoning, but aren't you saying "the rule applies, whether it makes any sense to apply it or not"?

Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. For example, a series of polymorph spells might turn a creature into a mouse, a lion, and then a snail. In this case, the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

The last sentence explains why the last spell in the series trumps the others: because one effect makes an earlier effect irrelevant. The example shows how this works in the case of multiple polymorph spells: you can't be a mouse and a lion and a snail at the same time, so the spells turning you into a mouse and a lion become irrelevant as long as the one turning you into a snail lasts. But clearly, this rationale doesn't apply to different kinds of energy resistance, which can be in effect simultaneously.

Interpreting the rule as you do raises the question: why would resist energy (cold) render a previously cast resist energy (fire) temporarily irrelevant? Until someone offers a better answer than "because the rule says so," I have to reject that interpretation. Rules don't (or at least shouldn't) exist for no reason.

Note that the rule name is not "Multiple Effects which Make Each Other Irrelevant," it is "Same Effect with Differing Results."

And yet the rule makes it clear that the effects do make each other irrelevant, and that's all they do. They don't remove or dispel each other.

I think the "Same Effect with Differing Results" and "One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant" rules are related and have to be considered together. They are saying that whether it's the same spell twice or two entirely different spells, if one spell makes another irrelevant, the result is the same: the earlier spell isn't removed, dispelled, or negated, it's just "trumped" while the most recent spell remains in effect.

 

[Greenfield]

Why would it render it irrelevant? It wouldn't. That particular term only applies to the Polymorphs.

But the principle that you can't benefit from multiple castings of the same spell remains. Unless the effect is instantaneous, you only get the effect of the biggest bonus, or in case of a tie, the latest one.

I can't Enlarge Person to go Large, then do it again to go Huge. Large is as big as I'll go.

The later spell suppresses the earlier one without canceling it. So if I did try to stack Enlarge spells (or Resist Energy spells for that matter), and someone tried to Dispel them, I'd still be Enlarged (Dispel Magic only drops one spell, after all).

So there may be reasons for multiple applications of defensive spells, but multiple simultaneous effects isn't one of them.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I understand your reasoning, but aren't you saying "the rule applies, whether it makes any sense to apply it or not"?

No, I'm not.

The last sentence explains why the last spell in the series trumps the others:

No, it doesn't "why" as I read it. It explains "what" - as in, what happens when you get two instances of the same effect with different results.

Again, the question you start with is not, "Does application #2 make #1 irrelevant?" It is, "Is application #2 the same effect as application #1? If so, then application #1 is irrelevant so long as #2 is around."

In short, you're reading it backwards - you're calling the effect the cause.

Interpreting the rule as you do raises the question: why would resist energy (cold) render a previously cast resist energy (fire) temporarily irrelevant? Until someone offers a better answer than "because the rule says so," I have to reject that interpretation. Rules don't (or at least shouldn't) exist for no reason.

Because they are the "same effect;" they are the same spell.

I think the "Same Effect with Differing Results" and "One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant" rules are related and have to be considered together.

Bollocks!

They're under different headers for a reason. You don't get to just smash them together and say, "Well, really, they're the same rule."

 

[Vegepygmy]

They're under different headers for a reason. You don't get to just smash them together and say, "Well, really, they're the same rule."

I'm not saying they're the same rule. I'm saying they're related...in the same way that the rules for attacks of opportunity are related to the rules for normal melee attacks, even though they're under different headers.

None of the game's rules exist in a vacuum. Everything has to be read in context. I believe these two paragraphs attempt to articulate the same principle: one spell that renders another irrelevant doesn't negate the first spell, it merely trumps it.

Otherwise, I simply don't see any reason for this rule that says you can't benefit from the same spell twice. (I do see reasons for other rules that say you can't benefit from the same spell twice; because stacking bonuses could quickly become "broken," for example.) But saying it's "because they're the same spell" is just saying "because that's the rule," you see?

 

[Greenfield]

If Resist Cold were a separate spell from Resist Fire, you could stack them any way you like.

And if pigs had wings they'd be pig-geons.

They aren't. They are the same spell, applied to get different results.

So you can Endure Elements - Heat, while keeping up a Protection from Energy - Cold, and a Resist Energy - Acid, while maintaining an Energy Immunity - Lightning. As for sonic damage, I suggest ear plugs. You're pretty much out of elemental defenses.

We've house-ruled that Rings sit slightly outside this, in that you can wear multiple Resistance rings and have them work, and still have the actual spell cast as well. Technically no more kosher than adding the Deflection bonus from a Ring of Protection to a Protection from Evil, or trying to stack Mage Armor with Bracers of Armor, but somehow it feels right.

So sue me.

 

[Jimlock]

Rules Compendium (p48):

RESISTANCE TO ENERGY

A creature that has resistance to energy has the ability (usually extraordinary) to ignore some damage

of a certain energy type each time it takes damage of that type.

Each resistance is defined by what energy type it resists and how many points of damage are resisted.

For instance, if a creature has resistance to fire 10, it can ignore the first 10 points of fire damage it takes from each attack.

The source of the damage, mundane or magical, doesn’t matter.

When resistance completely negates the damage from an energy attack, that attack can’t force a Concentration check.

Multiple sources of resistance to a certain energy type don’t stack with each other. Only the highest value applies to any given attack.


(page 5: When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein,
Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence.)

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Yes, Jimlock, that answers the question on whether or not Resist Energy (Fire) would stack with Protection from Energy (Fire).

It has little to nothing to do with the present conversation, however.

 

[draconlord]

If Resist Cold were a separate spell from Resist Fire, you could stack them any way you like.

And if pigs had wings they'd be pig-geons.

They aren't. They are the same spell, applied to get different results.

So you can Endure Elements - Heat, while keeping up a Protection from Energy - Cold, and a Resist Energy - Acid, while maintaining an Energy Immunity - Lightning. As for sonic damage, I suggest ear plugs. You're pretty much out of elemental defenses.

Assuming that multiple Resist Energies is not kosher, which I'm not completely convinced by:

Energetic Healing. Energy Absorption. Dragon Skin. Fireshield. The list just goes on and on...

Not saying it's cheap/practical, but for a large enough dungeon crawl/boss fight, it's probably worth it. Besides, worst comes to worst, I could just ask the other players to pool their money. 2000 gold or so is helluva expensive, but it's a lot less pricey than dying thanks to a horde of dragons...

The main reason that I want to have multiple Resist Energies, and not stack all these spells is because there are newbies in my group, and it's lot easier telling them they have Energy Resistance 30(or 20, depending on the budget), then telling them they have Immunity to fire, Energy Resistance 30 to electricity, gets the first 120points of acid absorbed, half damage from cold, and absorption+healing/10 for sonic.

 

[Jimlock]

Yes, Jimlock, that answers the question on whether or not Resist Energy (Fire) would stack with Protection from Energy (Fire).

It has little to nothing to do with the present conversation, however.

Personally, when i read this:

Multiple sources of resistance to a certain energy type don’t stack with each other

is as if I also read:

Multiple sources of resistance to a different type stack with each other.

Resist energy - Fire and Resist Energy - Cold, are sources of resistance to a different type.

I don't understand why you translate "multiple sources" into "different spells/abilities" only?