Explain template/shapechange/POA stacking for me, please.

[Username17]

The "Combining Magical Effects" section exists.

Yes it does.

It supports all of my rules interpretations.

No it doesn't.

All I want you to do is explain how the following occur:

Balthasar (a 16th level Wizard) and Melchior (a 9th level Wizard) are walking down the street. Balthasar casts Greater Magic Weapon on a sword. Not to be outdone, Melchior casts Greater Magic Weapon on the same sword. The sword has a +4 enhancement bonus for 16 hours. If, within the next nine hours, Balthasar's GMW is dispelled, the weapon will still have a +2 bonus.

Balthasar and Melchior are walking down the street. Balthasar casts polymorph and transforms his friend Karl (a 7th level Fighter) into a Griffin. Not to be outdone, Melchior casts polymorph, and transforms Karl into a Troll. For the next 9 minutes, Karl is a Troll, and for seven minutes after that, Karl will be a Griffin.

Explain that. Use big words. Or small words. I don't care, because in order to do that, you're going to have to abandon your entire idea that spells ignore other spell effects, with only the latest spell taking effect. If you cast two spells with the same bonus, even if it's the same spel, only the bigger applies - regardless of the order it has been cast in.

Why? Because spells don't ever turn off. They may be made irrelevent, but they are still on. They are still having their effect. Spells don't turn each other off. Even if they have the same name.

-Username17

[User3]

Frank, in your example above - does >

If you cast two spells with the same bonus, even if it's the same spel, only the bigger applies - regardless of the order it has been cast in.

Why? Because spells don't ever turn off. They may be made irrelevent, but they are still on. They are still having their effect. Spells don't turn each other off. Even if they have the same name.

... Wildshape combined (or stacked) with Polymorph/Shapechange apply here as well?

[Username17]

Frank, in your example above - does >
...
... Wildshape combined (or stacked) with Polymorph/Shapechange apply here as well?

The key is that Wildshape or Polymorph isn't a bonus. It's a change, but no bonuses are applied. So when you wildshape into a rabbit, you don't get a strength penalty that takes your strength all the way down to rabbit strength - your strength is replaced by rabbit strength. If you alter self yourself into a weasel, your strength is not "undefined" - it's still rabbit strength. Sure you have layered a new form (weasel) on top of your rabbit form, setting your size and shape to that of a weasel, and sure that form doesn't set or change your strength to anything - but the wildshape is still going on.

It's still an active effect for every single purpose that isn't actively overwriting it. You still get to count any part of any previous spell effect (or supernatural effect) that hasn't individually been made irrelevent by a subsequent overwrite.

And overwrites are only made by directly setting things to values. Bonuses and penalties just get added (similar named bonuses and penalties only have the largest version added in). So if a form change like Aspect of the Deity kicks in and sets your skin color to silver, a later Polymorph can set yoru skin color to green and render the silver irrelevent. But if the AoD gives a +4 unnamed bonus to your strength and Polymorph sets your strength to 23, your strength is 27.

---

And yes, the alternative is that you wildshape into a rabbit and then Alter Self into a weasel and have "undefined" strength. That's so ludicrous as to not be worth the amount of words we have already wasted talking about it.

-Username17

[User3]

Balthasar (a 16th level Wizard) and Melchior (a 9th level Wizard) are walking down the street. Balthasar casts Greater Magic Weapon on a sword. Not to be outdone, Melchior casts Greater Magic Weapon on the same sword. The sword has a +4 enhancement bonus for 16 hours. If, within the next nine hours, Balthasar's GMW is dispelled, the weapon will still have a +2 bonus.

Explanation below:

Same Effect In More Than Once In Differing Strengths. 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.

--------------

Balthasar and Melchior are walking down the street. Balthasar casts polymorph and transforms his friend Karl (a 7th level Fighter) into a Griffin. Not to be outdone, Melchior casts polymorph, and transforms Karl into a Troll. For the next 9 minutes, Karl is a Troll, and for seven minutes after that, Karl will be a Griffin.

Explanation below:

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.

Anything else?

Come on. Try harder.

[DracoNova]

K, the problem is, neither one of those explanations actually supports your argument.

So, the "Same effect with differing results" spell puts the earlier Polymorph on into the background until the later effect ends (if it ever does). That doesn't tell us anything about what happens if the first effect ends before the second one. I don't recall any passage that tells us without ambiguity when a spell's duration is determined, which is what we'd need to put a definite end to this discussion. Thus, the claim that the second effect checks back to see if it's still valid isn't directly supported by the rules.

To be fair, the claim that it doesn't check back doesn't really seem to be directly supported, either, for the same reason. Still, I think with the advantage of reduced insanity due to bookkeeping gives it the nod. With this interpretation, in addition to not having to refigure PAO durations, it also becomes unnecessary to redetermine durations as a result of caster level increase (like if the wizard activates a strand of prayer beads of karma while he has spells running).

In the end, we have two alternative interpretations, neither one directly supported by the RAW. I can understand the motivation motivation behind your reading, K, but I'm not convinced that the increased complexity is warranted given the ambiguity of the rules.

[User3]

Thus, the claim that the second effect checks back to see if it's still valid isn't directly supported by the rules.

Since you can't stack Polymorph effects (because of the rule that one spell cannot affect another spell's operation unless stated), it doesn't matter. No turning into a rabbit with Wildshape, then Alter Selfing into a weasel. No need to check what happens when the first effect ends.

PAO stacking for better durations can't happen if you have read the text, so you are not reconfiguring durations. Here's the text, once gain...

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.

Getting a better duration on PAO because of a different PAO is affecting its operation, by definition. Even if the Same Effect, Different Results rules didn't exist, this passage would nix PAO stacking.

[Essence]

So, then, you'd have no problem declaring that a psion who Metamorphed himself into a falchion was not a valid target for Animate Objects?

Or that an Awakened monstrous scorpion was not a valid target for Detect Thoughts?

Or that a human with Girallon's Blessing was not a valid target for Fuse Arms?


That is, straight up, a non-starter.

[Username17]

PAO checking duration continuously isn't even on the table. It can't check duration without applying its text, its duration is in its text. If duration is checked dynamically, then by definition it's permanent.

The text is applied, part of that text compares your size to the size of the form, which are by definition the same because the text is being applied, and the spell never ends.

You could claim that things worked that way for spells other than PAO. Spells that didn't have their duration rubric hidden in their text perhaps. But for PAO, there is no duration rubric outside the text of the spell. You can't apply the duration of the spell in the absence of applying the spell.

Therefore, the only way to have any of those intermediate durations is to assume that the spell acts as a before/after comparison between your values just before applying the spell and your values just after applying the spell.

-Username17

[User3]

So, then, you'd have no problem declaring that a psion who Metamorphed himself into a falchion was not a valid target for Animate Objects?

If you have a Cha score, you can't use Animate Objects on it regardless of whether you are a using a spell effect to become a falchion. Cha score means that you are a person, and not an object.

Combining spell effects doesn't even come into it.

Or that an Awakened monstrous scorpion was not a valid target for Detect Thoughts?

Awakening is an instantaneous effect, so it would allow a Detect thoughts to work. However, Scorpians are Vermin and so are immune to mind affecting effects.

Sorry, thats also invalid before you ever get to combining spell effects.

Or that a human with Girallon's Blessing was not a valid target for Fuse Arms?

Right. No +24 Str for you. Fuse Arms is being is being directly affected by the Girallion's Blessing spell.

The rules that you can't use this abusive spell combo.

You have my condolances.

[User3]

You can't apply the duration of the spell in the absence of applying the spell.

Right, you apply the effects of the spell as if no other spell was affecting its effects. So a PAO ignores other PAOs when it applies its effects, meaning no PAO stacking.

[User3]

1104332382[/unixtime]]

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.

Getting a better duration on PAO because of a different PAO is affecting its operation, by definition.

What? No.

Getting a better duration on PAO because of a different PAO is affecting its results. It is not affecting its "operation". How does PAO "operate"? It checks the starting form against the ending form, and determines its duration based on the degree of similarity between the two.

The actual effects of a spell are not the same thing as "the way a spell operates". The way Fireball operates is that you roll Xd6 and apply fire damage in a specified radius, from a point of your choosing or an intermediate point if there's something in the way. The way Mage Armor operates is that you get a +4 Armor bonus as a force effect for a level-dependent number of hours. The way Polymorph operates is that you get a laundry list of things replaced by another laundry list of things, for a duration based on the similarity between the two ends of the transformation. And other spells in effect in no way change or alter the operation of these spells unless specifically cited.

Think of a spell as, essentially a computer program. You have a certain set of inputs, you have a process for determining what to do with those inputs, and by applying the latter to the former you get a result. "The way a spell operates" is the second part -- the process -- or, as you might call them, the operations you perform on your inputs.

But those inputs can and do change based on all sorts of factors, without changing the way the spell operates. So when you become a higher-level caster, you get more dice on your Fireball -- and the operation of the spell doesn't change. And when you cast Polymorph on a creature to turn it into the same type of creature, you get a longer duration, because the inputs are different -- but at no point has the operation of the spell been affected by the presence of another spell.

--d.

[User3]

Or, to put it another way, try this thought-experiment:

Describe the operation of a spell similar to polymorph, in sufficiently general terms as to be used as a standard spell description. Make sure to include the twist where degree of similarity controls duration.

For instance, 'Polymorph Some Objects': this spell transforms any plastic object, which must be less than one foot in size in its largest dimension and must be one of three basic shapes (cube, pyramid, sphere) into either a cube, pyramid, or sphere of identical size and composition. The duration of this spell is one minute per level if used to transform an object from one shape into a different shape, and permanent if used to transform an object from one shape into the same shape.

Now ask yourself: how does this text change when the target is already under the effect on another spell?

The example given describes the operation of a spell (a stupid spell, to be sure, but a spell). If you use it to polymorph a cube into a sphere, and then use it again to polymorph the sphere into a sphere -- the spell operates in exactly the same way. No change is necessary, and if there is no change in the operation of the spell, then being under the effect of another spell does not affect the operation of the spell.

In order to argue that the second transformation is not permanent, you need to argue either that:

a) The text does not completely describe the operation of the spell; or,
b) A cube polymorphed into a sphere is not a sphere.

Arguing the first point with regard to spells written by someone else takes us off into, as Frank would so eloquently put it, crazy town -- because if the text purportedly describing the operation of the spell does not completely describe the operation of the spell, we're basically just making stuff up.

Arguing the second point is possible, but is no more supported by the text of the spell than the opposite interpretation.

--d.

[User3]

And when you cast Polymorph on a creature to turn it into the same type of creature, you get a longer duration, because the inputs are different -- but at no point has the operation of the spell been affected by the presence of another spell.

Thats flat illogical. If the second PAO has a different duration because of the first PAO, and only because of it, then you have changed the spell's operation with the first effect. Its effects are now being applied differently(longer duration). You are getting a different effect than if you just cast a PAO on a guy without the first PAO.

Only instantaneous effects work like that.

[User3]

1104348305[/unixtime]]
Thats flat illogical. If the second PAO has a different duration because of the first PAO, and only because of it, then you have changed the spell's operation with the first effect.

No. You have changed the spell's effect. The spell operates in exactly the same way. It checks your form, and based on that form and the form you turn into -- you get a duration. That's how the spell operates, seriously, and it hasn't changed. To claim that this is a change in the "the way the spell operates" makes as much sense as to claim that Mage Armor operates differently when cast by a 5th and a 10th level wizard. It doesn't -- it operates exactly the same way.

You are getting a different effect than if you just cast a PAO on a guy without the first PAO.

Exactly. You're getting a different effect, but not because of any change in the spell's operation.

--d.

[Username17]

The operation is "If X, then Y; if P, then Q".

Another spell or effect can change an X into a P or vice versa. If so, the operation goes ahead and you get Y or Q as appropriate to what you actually had when you cast the X->Y, P->Q spell.

In order to cast this spell on an X and get a Q, you would have to change the operation of the spell. So if you ignored a spell that had transformed a P into an X, you would be changing the operation. You'd actually have X, but you'd get Q, that doesn't fit with the operation of "If X, then Y; if P, then Q".

---

So the rule that says that one spell can't change the operation of another spell actually says that you must count the total current state after all previous spells have been calculated when you apply the most recent spell.

In short, the very text that K keeps quoting over and over again proves without the slightest slimmer of doubt that he is wrong.

-Username17

[User3]

The operation is "If X, then Y; if P, then Q".

Thats two operations. Have you ever programmed before?

Changing from one operation to another is changing the operation.

[Neeek]

K, by your interpretation, Owl's Wisdom would NOT raise your will saves vs other spells, because it would be one spell directly effecting another spell without stating that it does. This is both not the case, and a rather silly argument.

[User3]

1104355427[/unixtime]]

The operation is "If X, then Y; if P, then Q".

Changing from one operation to another is changing the operation.

Evaluating a conditional is not 'changing the operation of a spell'. It is part of the operation of the spell.

--d.

[User3]

K, by your interpretation, Owl's Wisdom would NOT raise your will saves vs other spells, because it would be one spell directly effecting another spell without stating that it does.

How do you get that?

Owl's Wisdom explicity says that it increases Wisdom. While is does not explicity say what a higher Wisdom does, other rules text does, with a direct effect always being better saves vs Will save spells(if its at least 2 point higher).

[User3]

The operation is "If X, then Y; if P, then Q".

Changing from one operation to another is changing the operation.

Evaluating a conditional is not 'changing the operation of a spell'. It is part of the operation of the spell.

Umm, I have to ask again: "have you ever programmed before?"

That's not one conditional, or one operation. That's two. If you programmed it, then it could only be two seperate lines of code. Even Frank knows it. That's why the two operations are seperated by a ";". A ";" seperates two different, but related, ideas.

[Username17]

What the hell does the number of lines of computer code have to do with anything? If you really want to, you can put everything on a single line of code. The linebreaks are just to make it easier to read in most languages.

Righteous Might gives a size increase, a strength bonus, and some DR. If you were writing that as an actual computer program you'd have to write about 10 lines of code at least just for the "normal operation" of that spell. You'd have to throw in comparisons to make sure that other size bonuses and such were smaller before you could apply the bonuses. You'd have to write some more code to make sure that when RM went away other size bonuses didn't go with it.

But who cares? The number of lines of computer code used in a spell has nothing to do with anything. There's a fair number of lines of "English Code" in most spells as well.

Nevertheless, the "normal operation" of a spell is every single thing it does. That includes every automatic comparison to the target, every modification to the target, every choice made by the caster, all of that shit. "Normal Operation" is a collective verb, and can include any number of individual steps.

The "normal operation" of a microchip factory is that silicon and gold go in one side and microchips come out the other. Other factories in the area have no effect on that normal operation. The normal operation includes an assload of steps, including cleaning and cutting and embedding actions. Another factory might process silicon into insulating tile or glass.

And the fact that the other factories don't effect the normal operation of the microchip factory does not indicate in any way that you can take insulating tile or glass and put it into the microchip factory and get microchips.

You're the literature guy, you're supposed to be good at this "English Language" thing. The fact that you are so tragically missing the meaning of the statement "normal operation" is just sad.

-Username17

[DracoNova]

I think we may be getting too caught up in the programming metaphor...

K, like I stated before, I can understand the motivation, but this really is an open-and-shut case. All the overlapping effects rules in the world don't render poly-stacking illegal, because when it comes to it, the more specific rules in the spell descriptions override the general ones. PAO checks the target's status when determining its duration. If the target is already the target of a polymorph effect, then the PAO is adjucated according to the target's post-polymorph status. That's the only way it can work, because the polymorph spell text that deals with changing the target's type and size is not conditional -- it's a flat-out change, with no exceptions. Therefore, there's no grounds for a claim that PAO checks the target's "real" status, because polymorph redefines that status. Furthermore, as Frank has stated already, the claim that the PAO constantly checks the target's status doesn't work, because PAO redefines the target's status as well, and that's the only version that exists to check.

There's no way around this interpretation -- this is how the rules define the situation, and rule specificity demands attending to these over general effect stacking rules. I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- specificity is integral to the continued functioning of the rules. Without it, the game breaks, because there's no way to determine how to deal with rule conflicts (of which there are no shortage in D&D). Therefore, arguing from the general effect-stacking rules over specific spell description wording doesn't work -- it goes against one of the foundations of the rules.

[User3]

1104362101[/unixtime]]
That's not one conditional, or one operation. That's two. If you programmed it, then it could only be two seperate lines of code. Even Frank knows it. That's why the two operations are seperated by a ";". A ";" seperates two different, but related, ideas.

Evaluating more than one conditional does not change the operation of a spell. Even if they evaluate different things.

You could have a spell that only works on humanoids of less than 6 hit dice -- that's two conditionals. You could have a spell that only works at night, under the full moon, after you've just killed someone -- that's three conditionals. You could have a spell that turns you into a giant if you're a human, into a dragon if you're a lizard, into a retriever if you're a vermin, into a tyrannosaur if you're an animal, into a beholder if you're an aberration, and has no effect if you're none of these things -- that's six conditionals, and they still don't change the operation of the spell: they describe the operation of the spell.

--d.

[User3]

You're the literature guy, you're supposed to be good at this "English Language" thing. The fact that you are so tragically missing the meaning of the statement "normal operation" is just sad.

Operators exist in code (which Frank and others insisted that we use as an metaphor for DnD) and in language.

"Changing the operation" is a simple phrase. It basically means that "if you do X, then instead of the default Y happening, Z happens instead." That's what happens with PAO.

"Normal operation" is a phrase that was not used in any previous post. Do a search. You won't find it.

Why you feel compelled to rant about it is beyond me. It looks like smoke and mirrors to conceal the fact that you lost this argument sometime around yesterday.

Where is your argument that a second PAO on top of a PAO does not create a different effect than if it was not cast on a guy without a PAO effect? That's why you want it. You want that Permanent duration that you could not get with one PAO. You want the first PAO to affect the duration of the second one, thereby changing the second spell's effect from short-ish to "permanent." You want to ignore the rules on combining magical effects.

[DracoNova]

You want that Permanent duration that you could not get with one PAO. You want the first PAO to affect the duration of the second one, thereby changing the second spell's effect from short-ish to "permanent." You want to ignore the rules on combining magical effects.

He's not ignoring the rules. You are. Once again, the rules for polymorph specifically change the target's size and type. No qualifiers, no exceptions. The rules for PAO specifically base the spell's duration on, among other things, the target's size and type. The spell doesn't check back with the target's original size and type, because it simply doesn't say that it does. Besides, to do so would cause a problem in conjunction with the polymorph rule cited above, leading to the unusual state of affairs in which a polymorphed target would effectively have two sizes and types...which is illogical.

Effect stacking rules don't help you, because of specificity. The rules for PAO clearly dictate what is and what is not considered when determining its duration. Trying to backdoor in the target's original state via effect-stacking rules not only leads to the problem stated above, but also tries to override these specific rules by applying a general one...which is flat-out, undeniably wrong. The game just doesn't work that way.

So the argument against poly-stacking is both illogical and wrong. The argument presented here fulfills the need to cite rules -- specific rules, mind -- as support, in the form of the polymorph/PAO references. These citations prove that the rules simply cannot be considered to support the argument from effect-stacking because of specificity, and therefore such an argument is completely groundless.