Wall of Fire Spell

[Deset Gled]

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?

No. As I said (and cited) earlier, instantaneous spells are a specific exception to all parts of the non-stacking rules.

I2K posted an example of another damage spell that wouldn't stack with my ruling, but it doesn't seem any worse to me than the idea of multiple cloudkills or acid fogs stacking.

 

[Mistwell]

I'd let them stack. However, it's rare it would matter. Why couldn't you put the second wall right next to the first wall? You would have to cross both to get to where you want to go anyway.

 

[ainbimagh]

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?

It does.

Damge is neither a bonus nor a penalty.

-HD is a penalty
-HP is a penalty
-CON is a penalty
Damage is NOT.

All of these thinks can affect your hit point totals though.

 

[rvalle]

I'd let them stack. However, it's rare it would matter. Why couldn't you put the second wall right next to the first wall? You would have to cross both to get to where you want to go anyway.

It was a case of Noble Fire Salamanders dropping Walls of Fire on the party while they were in a hallway. One was already laid down and I thought about dropping another on top of the first one. Thats when the ? about stacking came up.

Yes, for the most part the party was staying in the walls and fighting as they were not taking much damage due to the Resist Fire's most everyone had up.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Should you rule that walls of fire don't stack and that you need not use a snap-to-grid method of spell placement, then the walls of fire could be positioned inches apart. That way, there's no question of them 'stacking'. Even with snap-to-grid, you can place them 5ft apart or so facing in opposite directions, or boxing someone in on all sides.

 

[demadog]

Whelp, I figure every good spell needs it's day in court, so I'll argue for the prosecution.

The defense would have you believe that this is an open and shut case. All damage stacks. However, we are not really talking about damage per sea, we are talking about spell effects. The question is; do all spell effects stack?

The clear answer is no. The defense by thier own addmission and clearly stated in the RAW, spells like Bull's Strength, Bless, and Ray of Enfeeblement effects are not cumulative. Now lets remember one point here, what do these non-cumulative spells have in common? They all have a non-instantaneous durations.

Now, i'll concede that the defense has a strong case. The Combining Magical Effects section of the RAW does start by saying that most spell effects do stack, but it also then goes on to decribe several ways in which spells like the aforementioned Bull's Strength do so non-cumulatively. At the end of these general exceptions is an odd adjunct about Instantaneous Effects, which goes out of its way to tell us that indeed spells with an Instantaneous duration are in fact cumalative.

Moreover, the flavor text of the Instantaneous Effect section goes on to specifically point out that Fireballs and Cure Light Wound spells are prime examples of spell effects that are definately cumulative (3.5 PHB pg. 172). What do these two flavor text spells have in common? They both deal with damage. The defense led us to believe that this kind of statement would have been unnecessary, but there it is. The RAW goes out of its way to tell us that Instantaneous Damage producing/healing spells are cumulative.

But here's the crux, does that mean that other damaging spell effects are not cumulative? Is Acid Cloud, Ice Storm, or as an example Heat Metal cumulative? Heat Metal has a 7 round duration and it does damage. The text of Heat Metal decribes the spell effects as turning metal searing, but it surely doesnt say that another Heat Metal spell can make the object more searing or extremely searing. No, Heat Metal can only make an object searing hot.

Now exclaim the aged ladies, we are sure to be misunderstood. If there are two Walls of Fire right behind one another then of course both would have an effect. They would if they were set apart on the battlefield. Well, lets examine that more closely.

Wall of fire is an area-of-effect spell. Area-of-effect spells must begin on a grid interestion and then emanate out from there, wether in a ring or a straight line in the case of Wall of Fire. This rule has the eloquent effect of not being able to run two line-effect spells parralel less than five feet apart. However, you cetainly can put two ring radii very close together, they should have a cumulative effect.

Not so fast. Area-of-effect also states that a square, an entire square, is effected if the line goes through two sides. So, the curtain of a Wall of Fire isn't paper thin. Like every other area-of-effect spell it effects the whole square it passes through or none of it. It cannot and does not effect half or part of the square, its all or nothing (3.5 PHB pg. 175). Therefore, having two or more rings of a Wall of Fire spell pass through the same square is just like having two or more Heat Metal spells on the same piece of armor. They are non-instantaneous spells effecting the same object or area and are not cumulative, just like Bull's Strength.

With that the prosecution rests. I will forgo any redirect and let the jury decide after any defense rebuttal.

 

[Darklone]

I'd say it simpler. The stacking rule above speaks only about bonuses or penalties to damage. Not damage. Therefore different or the same damage spells do indeed stack.

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

Read the first sentence.

Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient. Except in special cases, a spell does not affect the way another spell operates. Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, the spell description explains that effect.

There you have it. If it's not mentioned in the spell description (compare to Heat Metal and Chill Metal), then you simply apply both spells. None of the further stacking spell effects applies here (see above: "bonuses ...")

 

[Vegepygmy]

There you have it. If it's not mentioned in the spell description (compare to Heat Metal and Chill Metal), then you simply apply both spells.

I think you're misinterpreting the word "other." By "other spells," they mean different spells: haste and bull's strength, or shield and mage armor. Not wall of fire and another wall of fire.

The rules seem clear and sensible to me: two wall of fire spells in the same area do not stack. Only the "best one" applies. This makes sense, as it can only get "so hot" in a particular area.

 

[ainbimagh]

I think you're misinterpreting the word "other." By "other spells," they mean different spells: haste and bull's strength, or shield and mage armor. Not wall of fire and another wall of fire.

The rules seem clear and sensible to me: two wall of fire spells in the same area do not stack. Only the "best one" applies. This makes sense, as it can only get "so hot" in a particular area.

Ok first off 'this makes sense' is not a rules answer to anything. Show me a direct quote that states two damaging spells do not stack. Then you can make your ruling otherwise, it sounds like a fine house rule but is not RAW.

and I would like to re-emphasize my main point..

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).

damage is neither a bonus or penalty thereby not effected by this set of stacking rules, and thereby both effects would do damage.

 

[Sithobi1]

Would you say a Sorcerer could not research a new spell because the research subheading is under the Adding Spells to a Wizard's Spellbook heading, which says

Wizards can add new spells to their spellbooks through several methods. If a wizard has chosen to specialize in a school of magic, she can learn spells only from schools whose spells she can cast.

Sorcerers are not mentioned there, so they must be unable to research...right?