Temporary Hit Points

[italianranma]

This is coming mainly from the spell 'false life.' We (the characters) had an idea to buy a wand of false life and use it multiple times on each character before any big fights. I just read the divine vigor post and Smurf says that temporary hit points from multiple sources don't stack. I read the rules on spells, and also temporary hit points from the glossary of the PHB, and there's nothing in there that suggests that tHP from different sources wouldn't stack.

Obviously multiple false lives wouldn't stack, but according to the PHB under 'combining spell effects' pg 171 the multiple false lives would continue to act simultaniously. So as soon as the effect of one was over, the other would kick in, right?

So I have this sorcerer with 14 hp, and I cast FL on myself 4 times (I'm a greedy bastard) with the results of 9, 5, 11, and 13. What happens? I think the most powerful is shown first:
hp:29
if I take 6 points of damage, is that 6 points subtracted from all thp or just the dominant one?
I guess it would be all of them.

what do you think?

 

[Planesdragon]

So as soon as the effect of one was over, the other would kick in, right?

No. As you surmised properly, you'd lose one temporary HP from each spell for each HP of damage that you took. Because of this, it's simpler to just "flatten" all of the spells to one effect.

 

[James McMurray]

Check the 3.0 FAQ, it explains that temporary hit points only stack if they come from a single source which allows you to gain temp hit points over time (such as a Body Feeder weapon).

 

[The Souljourner]

No. As you surmised properly, you'd lose one temporary HP from each spell for each HP of damage that you took. Because of this, it's simpler to just "flatten" all of the spells to one effect.

Why do you think you'd remove hitpoints from all of them? If only the best one applies, you'd only remove 6 from the one with 13.

The long and the short of it is... it's not spelled out clearly in the rules and the DM should make a judgement call about what is fair and balanced and makes the most sense.

-The Souljourner

 

[James McMurray]

Actually, its spelled out perfectly clearly in the 3.0 FAQ. Nothing has changed int he rules that would make that answer invalid, thus it still holds.

 

[The Souljourner]

Um... what has changed is that we're no longer playing 3.0. Thus, it is 100% irrelevant.

-The Souljourner

 

[James McMurray]

Wrong, WotC has stated that the 3.0 FAQ still applies whenever the 3.5 FAQ does not answer a question, and the question relates to rules that have not changed.

The 3.5 FAQ does not answer this question.
The rules on temporary hit points have not changed.
Thus, the 3.0 FAQ entry still applies.

 

[The Souljourner]

Oh. Huh. My bad.

 

[Nail]

For the record: having to use the 3.0 FAQ for 3.5e questions sucks. Totally and completely.

3.5e is a revision. A revision revises the rules, making clear what was unclear, tweaking things, etc. That's the point of a revision.

Speaking from within the rules (and setting aside rule 0 for a moment), how are we supposed to divide what is useful from what is not within the old 3.0e FAQ?

Bah!

Solution: Ignore the 3.0e FAQ.

 

[James McMurray]

Yep, it would be vastly helpful if someone at WotC would take the 3.0 FAQ answers that still apply and cut and paste them into the 3.5 FAQ. Until then though, you can either ignore the 3.0 FAQ and go back to wondering "how does rule X work in conjunction with rule Y." Or you can read the rules thoroughly on whatever topic you can answer, then go to the 3.0 FAQ if your reading and the 3.5 FAQ haven't helped any. If the 3.0 FAQ contradicts what the 3.5 rules say, shoot an email (or several) to WotC and let them know. Hopefully they'll respond, and also add it to the next version of the 3.5 FAQ.