Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="killem2" data-source="post: 6090410" data-attributes="member: 6694697">Yes it says as though it were in the positive dominant enviroment, this is pretty clearly referring to to the fortitude save DC and what happens when it fails.  It is one complete sentence. Creatures that exceed their full normal hit points from this effect need to make Fortitude saves as if in a positive-dominant environment. To construe that the entire ability is this way, is a bit off to me, because there is zero reason why it could not have said any creature with in this aura gains fast healing 1. That is a term, very black and white, it can be used, clearly wotc didn't want fast healing 1 here. You can't just assume rules are intended one way, when they are clearly written another. God knows WOTC is not the best at editing their own content to make sense and it has more typos than I have ever seen, but  I don't think the would have wasted the extra lines of text when they could use an in game term such as Fast Healing X.Keep in mind the only reason this  came up for debate is because my DM thought I was talking about fast healing. I can see the confusion, but I also do not see the confusion after simply reading the text either.Wotc, took the time on a crap ton of Ex, Su, Spells, feats and so on, to state if they stack or not. Why would they do that, if they could have just as easily said NOTHING STACKS EVER.  Unless. They didn't though.  Even in the stacking entry when it is talking about bonuses, they give exceptions. Such as Dodge bonuses, synergy bonuses, and so on. Does not change the fact it is there, and it is a downside and your enemies can take advantage of it just as easily as you can.  A powerful wizard with a high spell craft could make a check or there could be a knowledge check about the creature so one would know what it is doing and CC the party in place. Dying is a pretty big deal.Ok, tactics, what's wrong with that? It isn't like these creatures are gods exactly. One nasty aoe and they are going down, because to get 10 you are talking about either good rolls on the d4, or maximized/twinned?   Basically its on the higher end of possibility and by that point enemies are not going to be push overs, and do you really want to waste your summon monster of that slot for healing? Depends.  I would rather use it ooc, and in combat in dire needs. Like oh <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> bob is at -5.I don't, but not out of balancing issues, it is out of misunderstanding rules.  I do not like crossing misunderstanding of rules with balance.  I do not care for voting against players in the name of balance, just because there is a clear interpetation error going on. Those owls would be dead in one round easily at level 17.  You think that shenanigan is going to go on further than that?  I don't. While I agree it COULD be over the top, in practice I don't see it actually happening. To me, this just shows a problem with healing through out d&d 3.5. If you think it is a good idea to ban stacking of everything universally that's fine, it is usually address in areas where the creators of the game saw it may be a problem. (Look at improved critical/keen and so on from 3.0)  I also think it is very unhealthy to gaming to place the players in a constant need to prove the existance of a negative. But they don't roll the concealment twice out of some theory that it doesn't stack, they don't roll it because they are already in a smoke filled area. However, as you can see they do have to at least make a save for a chance to be nauseated, even if the first one hits and renders the next one pointless, at least it got a chance to increase the odds and effectiveness.Which is why it was used an analogy to positive auras.  You can't just tell one creature that is ability to heal has stopped working because there is another near by, if anything, by the very unstable d&d logic, I say unstable because trying to pin point logic in d&d is a dangerous thing, the very fabric of how powerful positive energy and the positive plane work insinuates that it does work together.If you really want to put this to bed, take negative energy aura, instead of dying, you gain negative levels. You bet your ass you can gain more than one of those and they don't stop, because at the bottom of it you don't die, you become a wight. So why is it that the negative energy aura gets to apply itself over and over again, (look at every instance of negative levels), but when it comes to healing we have a double standard now?Thanks for your replies, you bring up solid aspects to the debate, but I am sadly seeing them only under the reasoning of interpretation rather than a need to find a rule.I guess when there is no rule in place you can RULE 0 it out, but then what you should be telling players is:This does stack, but it is unbalanced to allow them to stack, so I won't allow it. Even the spell positive energy aura doesn't ban stacking, and spells are usually very good at stopping anything that would be deemed outrageous.To be clear, this is not debating the power of them stacking, or the balancing ramification of allowing it to stack.  The only thing my DM and I were discussing was IF THEY STACK.   Anything else really has no bearing here.  It wouldn't matter if it said the creatures gain 500 points a round, if it stacks it stacks.My fear is, that alot of people who are staying it does not stack, are doing so out of this order:Look at question.It does stack.Thinks about problems this causes.Tries to show rules to disable it from happening.This is not answering a rules question, it is trying to balance under the guise of rules.</blockquote>

Verification