AbyssKnight
First Post
Yes, there is a benefit to 2 invisibility spells. It has to be dispelled twice for you to become visible. There is no reason you couldn't stack 50 such spells on yourself (beyond redundancy).
Warlock Abuse?
- Thread starter Road_Runner
- Start date
Globetrotter
First Post
Not to derail this thread, but why? Usually same effects do not stack only reset the duration. Is this RAW, and if so, where is it written?
I couldn't imagine casting multiple enlarge on someone. Extended effects is the purpose of metamagic feats.
I think this defeats the reasoning behind the spells. Conditions of the same category do not stack, this is seen throughout the game in feats, armor class and other bonuses.
I couldn't imagine casting multiple enlarge on someone. Extended effects is the purpose of metamagic feats.
I think this defeats the reasoning behind the spells. Conditions of the same category do not stack, this is seen throughout the game in feats, armor class and other bonuses.
Dandu
First Post
Bonuses do not stack, it is true; instead, the highest bonus of the type takes precedence.
RTFM on the subject.
Listen. It's not to extend, it's to make it harder to dispel. Instead of having to dispel one instance of Enlarge Person, you have to deal with two of them.
Globetrotter
First Post
I smell what your cooking, but I don't like the flavor, lol.
I think to make it harder we use spell focus feats. Now, I haven't followed that link above yet, so take that as you will.
Great thing about this game is you can rule as you like. You guys prefer the layered walla walla onions, I prefer simple scallions.
But I still think you're wrong (can I say that and not be banned?).
.
I think to make it harder we use spell focus feats. Now, I haven't followed that link above yet, so take that as you will.
Great thing about this game is you can rule as you like. You guys prefer the layered walla walla onions, I prefer simple scallions.
But I still think you're wrong (can I say that and not be banned?).
.Eldritch_Lord
Adventurer
I smell what your cooking, but I don't like the flavor, lol.
I think to make it harder we use spell focus feats. Now, I haven't followed that link above yet, so take that as you will.
Great thing about this game is you can rule as you like. You guys prefer the layered walla walla onions, I prefer simple scallions.
But I still think you're wrong (can I say that and not be banned?).
If you had actually read the link provided, you'd realize that they are in fact right. You can prefer scallions to onions all you want, but you're plain and simply wrong.
The following stacking rules come into play when determining the results of a spell.
- If you have a series of spells that either (A) does multiple mutually-exclusive things, such as several polymorph spells or (B) does the same thing in different strengths, the last spell cast takes precedence while it lasts, then the next most recent, and so on.
- If you have a series of non-mutually-exlusive spells, such as resist energy used to grant resistance to different energy types, they stack just fine.
- If you have a series of the same spell that grants exactly the same thing, they don't both do something, they simply sit there until the last one runs out.
That's how it works. In every case, casting one spell never removes another spell unless it is specifically designed to do so, like dispel magic or haste countering slow.
StreamOfTheSky
Adventurer
FWIW, I feel the same way as you. It may be RAW, but I'd never let someone stack the same spell effect ad nauseum like that to become immune to dispelling. I seriously doubt the designers intended for Warlock to be able to do that.
Dandu
First Post
How does adding +1 to the Difficulty Class for saving throws against spells from the school of magic you select help?
AbyssKnight
First Post
See, and I don't understand the problem (at least in general, the Warlock exploit could be an issue).
For example, look at the Twin Spell metamagic feat text.
"A spell whose effects wouldn't stack if it was cast twice under normal circumstances will create redundant effects if successfully twinned. For example, a twinned charm person doesn't create a more potent or long-lasting effect, but any ally of the target would have to succeed on two dispel attempts in order to free the target from the charm. As with other metamagic feats, twinning a spell does not affect its vulnerability to counterspelling, so a single successful counterspell negates both instances of a twinned spell."
So casting a Twinned Invisibility means they have to succeed at 2 caster level checks to Dispel. It would be exactly the same if I cast Invisibility, then cast it again the next round (the second casting would last a round longer, of course).
For example, look at the Twin Spell metamagic feat text.
"A spell whose effects wouldn't stack if it was cast twice under normal circumstances will create redundant effects if successfully twinned. For example, a twinned charm person doesn't create a more potent or long-lasting effect, but any ally of the target would have to succeed on two dispel attempts in order to free the target from the charm. As with other metamagic feats, twinning a spell does not affect its vulnerability to counterspelling, so a single successful counterspell negates both instances of a twinned spell."
So casting a Twinned Invisibility means they have to succeed at 2 caster level checks to Dispel. It would be exactly the same if I cast Invisibility, then cast it again the next round (the second casting would last a round longer, of course).
Globetrotter
First Post
I didn't know that feat existed... I stand corrected.
That being said, I still go with my previous thought, but houseruled only.
That being said, I still go with my previous thought, but houseruled only.
Similar Threads
