Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Greenfield" data-source="post: 5590139" data-attributes="member: 6669384">Not going to go into a long winded rebuttal.First you acknowledge the circular nature of your argument, but you seem to be pleased with it.  Again, not trying to be rude, but it seems like at least one of us doesn't understand that circular reasoning is a logical fallacy (and I don't think it's me).Regarding Resist and Protection spellsSo yes, the spells explicitly say they can't stack, and it has nothing to do with "same source".  Regarding False Life:  You're right, mine was a bad example.Regarding Comprehend Languages: I see no reason to believe you could stack this spell with itself.  Many play that you can understand *any* language, and that multiple castings aren't needed, but that's beside the point.  Your claim that you could use this spell multiple times to produce different effects, and have them all work at once, is as unsupported as the claim about multiple Resist Energy spells.  It's just you saying it. Bringing up more examples of your word supported by your word still doesn't make it anything more than your word.  Sorry.Summarizing much of the rest of your argument, you seem to be of the idea that multiple effects must "trump" each other in order to be banned.  The SRD uses that in an example, but the rule itself says you can't gain from having the same spell on you multiple times, period.Ignore the example, look at the rule.  It's really really clear.One thing I've learned though is that for many gamers, terms like "usually" or "almost always" translate as "never".  They always presume that they'll be the exception.  That's pretty much what you're doing here.  It's a willfully bad reading of the rules to try to make them say what you want.</blockquote>

Verification