What would happen if you cast an Energy Immunity (Fire), then follow it up with an Energy Immunity (Acid)? Are you now immune to both Fire & Acid for the duration of the spells, or does the second casting negate the first? If both are active, what prevents a player from buying a wand of Energy Immunity and making himself completely immune from damage from all five basic energy types every day for as long as his wand has charges?


2 Answers 2


Yes, they would stack as described.

I couldn't find this spell in the wonderful SRD (which is still a wonderful resource and can answer a lot of rules questions for you), so @JonathanHobbs and @BESW dug up a link to the spell in Complete Arcane. The text is as follows:

This abjuration grants a creature and its equipment complete protection against damage from one of the five energy types—acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic.

Energy immunity absorbs only damage, so the recipient could still suffer side effects such as drowning in acid, being deafened by a sonic attack, or becoming immobilized in ice.

Note: Energy immunity overlaps protection from energy and resist energy.

So long as energy immunity is in effect, the other spells absorb no damage.

Emphasis mine, of course.

Repeat castings do in fact stack, creating a near-total immunity to energy damage (this spell notably does not protect you from force damage, positive energy damage or negative energy damage). On the one hand, this is fairly powerful. On the other hand, 6th and 7th level spellcasting isn't a joke and it does burn up spell slots.

The stacking rules in 3.5 have to do with two things and two things only unless there's a specific exception in the wording of a spell or ability - bonus type stacking, and same source stacking. Bonus types - such as dodge bonuses, inherent bonuses, or insight bonuses - differentiate the sources of a bonus to a roll. With some small amount of exception, two bonuses of the same type (such as two enhancement bonuses) do not stack if you attempt to apply them to the same value. Likewise, two bonuses from sources with the same name do not stack, nor do two abilities or spells with the same name stack - if, and only if, they're trying to add or modify the same values or abilities. Though multiple instances of Energy Immunity do in fact have the same name, they're not trying to modify the same values or abilities - each one gives immunity to a different kind of energy. Thus, they stack.

But you can't have a wand of it.

The player can't buy a wand of energy immunity for the simple reason that it's a 6th level spell for divine casters and a 7th level spell for arcane ones, both well above the limit on wands (to wit, they can only contain spells of 4th level or lower).

  • \$\begingroup\$ Worth noting that there are staffs and scepters for higher-level spells in spell-trigger form. \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    May 25, 2013 at 17:02
  • \$\begingroup\$ In that case, what prevents a character from buying them? Their cost. \$\endgroup\$
    – Zachiel
    May 26, 2013 at 0:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ OK, that makes a lot of sense. Did not realise there was a spell-level limit on wands. But, like KRyan mentioned, there are staffs with higher level spells, only they are costy (as mentioned by Zachiel). However, a warlock has the ability to Imbue Item. This would allow him to create multiple Staffs of Energy Immunity if he has the right craft skill and a high enough UMD skill, thus saving him a lot of cash. Or do I have it all wrong? This can turn real nasty for a DM! \$\endgroup\$
    – Sam
    May 26, 2013 at 11:20
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Imbue Item still requires aforementioned Warlock to have the Craft Staff feat; by the time he can create those staves, he's high enough level that if he was a wizard he could just cast the spell. Additionally, spellcasting enemies (and sometimes just demons and the like) can always attempt to dispel the buffs. Lastly, but significantly, the supplements Frostburn and Sandstorm have options that render immunity moot. As always in 3.5, There Is a Solution For This. \$\endgroup\$ May 26, 2013 at 14:03

The rules of the game disagree with you, gents...


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.

  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Welcome to the site! I think this text is worth addressing, but as currently written your answer reads more like a response to the other answer than a complete answer to the question. Might I recommend editing in more detail? \$\endgroup\$
    – A_S00
    Jan 14, 2019 at 7:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ Your cited text indicates that 'usually the last spell in the series trumps the others.' This sort of statement creates a window where there might be an exception for this spell. Can you provide a definitive example to confirm that this is not an exception here? \$\endgroup\$ Jan 14, 2019 at 13:15
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ It's useful to read the original text from the Player's Handbook that includes examples of what's meant by same effects with differing results (172). A creature can't benefit from two polymorph spells cast on it twice because the second obviates the first, for example, but a second and successive different energy type energy immunity spell doesn't obviate the first and should—like a second and successive different energy type resist energy spell or protection from energy spell—work normally. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 14, 2019 at 13:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .