Wall of Fire Spell

[Infiniti2000]

The full rules text: ...

Emphasis both yours and mine. I believe that the "same effect" section of this text covers all effects (including damage), as many of the other references to "effects" indicate something other than a bonus or a penalty. As PC pointed out, though, this is arguable.

You may have quoted the full rules text, but you did so improperly. You do not have the section headings properly formatted. This is important because the quote I provided (that you bolded) is text in the main section and the one you bolded (and referred to) is a subsection. Thus, everything in the first bolded part applies to everything in the second. The next equal-level section heading is Spells with Opposite Effects.

Now, perhaps it's just shoddy formatting on WotC's part, so take this with a grain of salt, but I think my response is the correct one based on the rules. And, it's the way I rule it. I don't see it as a problem, either.

 

[rvalle]

Lets see if I can get it quoted better...

Stacking Effects
Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don’t stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above).

Different Bonus Names
The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different types. A bonus that isn’t named stacks with any bonus.

Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths
In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the best one applies.

Same Effect with Differing Results
The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually 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.

One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant
Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still active, but one has rendered the other useless in some fashion.

Multiple Mental Control Effects
Sometimes magical effects that establish mental control render each other irrelevant, such as a spell that removes the subjects ability to act. Mental controls that don’t remove the recipient’s ability to act usually do not interfere with each other. If a creature is under the mental control of two or more creatures, it tends to obey each to the best of its ability, and to the extent of the control each effect allows. If the controlled creature receives conflicting orders simultaneously, the competing controllers must make opposed Charisma checks to determine which one the creature obeys.

Spells with Opposite Effects
Spells with opposite effects apply normally, with all bonuses, penalties, or changes accruing in the order that they apply. Some spells negate or counter each other. This is a special effect that is noted in a spell’s description.

...

From : http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#combiningMagicalEffects

As Infinity says, the 'Stacking Effects' is an upper level item and the others are subsections.

But, shouldn't that be seen as follows:

Stacking Effects
Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don’t stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above).

Wall of Fire is not a bonus so the above does not apply. Stopping right there it looks like 2 Walls of Fire can stack.

Moving to the subsections:

Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths
In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the best one applies.

This seems to cover Wall of Fire. 2 of them would be identical spells operating in the same area.

With this subsection it looks like WOF is not stackable.

Don't get me wrong... I was thinking it would stack and was hoping to find rules to back that up. I want to follow Infinity's logic here but the above can be argued to have WOF covered.

rv

 

[Deset Gled]

You may have quoted the full rules text, but you did so improperly. You do not have the section headings properly formatted. This is important because the quote I provided (that you bolded) is text in the main section and the one you bolded (and referred to) is a subsection. Thus, everything in the first bolded part applies to everything in the second. The next equal-level section heading is Spells with Opposite Effects.

I don't believe that the subsections are limited to bonuses and penalities. The main section you quoted is the general rule, but the subsections are there to provide details about all effects beyond bonuses and penalties.

A lot of the other text in this section makes no sense if you assume it is only in reference to bonuses and penalties. For one example, the "Multiple Mental Control Effects section has nothing to do with bonuses or penalties. Also, the "Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths" and "Same Effect with Differing Results" sections do not make sense. "Different Strengths" says that you take the better of the two. "Differening Results" says you take the most recent. But if both of these sections refer only to bonuses and penalties, the only differing results you can have are differing strengths, which is contradictory (and redundant). Ditto for the "One Effect makes Another Irrelevant" and "Spells with Opposite Effects" sections, since bonuses and penalties can only make each other irrelevant when they are opposite effects.

I maintain that when they say "effects" in the "Same Effects with Differing Results" section, they are talking about all effects, including damage.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Well, consider other examples like call lightning. If two druids are fighting one fire giant, then the fire giant cannot take damage from both called lightning bolts. He takes damage from one, say, in initiative count 15, then only takes more damage in, say, initiative count 12 if the second druid rolled more damage. The same thing applies if you put up one wall of fire and then later on the round you put up a second. The two lightning bolts (non-instantaneous) are operating on the same target, so that fulfills the criterion as much as the two walls of fire in the same area.

 

[werk]

Damage stacks.

Done.

If you say "It seems wrong, but the rules say..." then you are interpreting the rules incorrectly.

 

[rvalle]

Damage stacks.

Done.

If you say "It seems wrong, but the rules say..." then you are interpreting the rules incorrectly.

I'm on the other side. "It seems right but the rules say..."

I'm trying to run this game as close to RAW as I can. Can you support your statment? I'd The quoted rules are the only ones I've seen (so far) for how spell effects stack.

Thanks,

rv

 

[werk]

I'm on the other side. "It seems right but the rules say..."

Yeah, I probably said it backwards.

Sounds like you know what should happen, by the RAW, but some verbage is getting in the way. The "Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths" quote doesn't sway me in the least, it's being applied incorrectly.

If you have two walls in different areas you'd take damage from both. Put them in the same area, same thing happens. There are too many precendents, examples, and analogies to back this up and there's only one little quote that refutes it...the quote is out of context.

 

[ainbimagh]

Stacking Effects
Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don’t stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above).

It very clearly outlines what IS considered an effect here... (notice damage is not listed)

Different Bonus Names
The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different types. A bonus that isn’t named stacks with any bonus.

Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths
In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the best one applies.

Same Effect with Differing Results
The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually 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.

One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant
Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still active, but one has rendered the other useless in some fashion.

Multiple Mental Control Effects
Sometimes magical effects that establish mental control render each other irrelevant, such as a spell that removes the subjects ability to act. Mental controls that don’t remove the recipient’s ability to act usually do not interfere with each other. If a creature is under the mental control of two or more creatures, it tends to obey each to the best of its ability, and to the extent of the control each effect allows. If the controlled creature receives conflicting orders simultaneously, the competing controllers must make opposed Charisma checks to determine which one the creature obeys.

It very clearly states that magical mental control is ALSO considered an effect, please notice it does not state damage as an effect here.

Spells with Opposite Effects
Spells with opposite effects apply normally, with all bonuses, penalties, or changes accruing in the order that they apply. Some spells negate or counter each other. This is a special effect that is noted in a spell’s description.

...

Nowhere in this description is damage identified as an effect it only defined mental control, bonuses and penalties as an effect. Therefor damage is not applied in this ruling.

If a spell was labelled all creatures in the area of effect take a -10 penalty per caster level to their hit points. Then multiple spells of this type would not stack.

However damage is never an attribute bonus or an attribute penalty.

 

[Deset Gled]

The "Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths" quote doesn't sway me in the least, it's being applied incorrectly.

...

There are too many precendents, examples, and analogies to back this up and there's only one little quote that refutes it...the quote is out of context.

If "Same Effect with Differing Results" doesn't apply to bonuses and penalties, what does it apply to?

Can you please provide any of these precedents and examples?

 

[werk]

Can you please provide any of these precedents and examples?

The easiest is already given, compare getting hit with two fireballs in the same round to getting hit with two rays of enfeeblement.

Are you suggesting that fireballs don't stack?