5
\$\begingroup\$

As far as I am aware, you can't have multiple instances of the same spell active on you in Pathfinder (and even if you could, the benefits probably wouldn't stack). For example, you couldn't cast named bullet on an arrow twice to deal 2 points per CL. The same would presumably go for greater named bullet.

Could you cast named bullet on a piece of ammo/a thrown weapon followed by greater named bullet to give it a total of +3 points of damage per CL?

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ "The effects of this spell do not stack with those of false life." \$\endgroup\$ – Axoren Nov 7 '14 at 23:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Axoren Whoops, I missed that bit. Updated with a better example. \$\endgroup\$ – Hydrothermal Nov 7 '14 at 23:45
5
\$\begingroup\$

Not if the bonus provided by the spell is typed. Named bonuses never stack with bonuses with the same type. For example Mighty Strength and Bull's Strength don't stack as they both provide an Enhancement bonus.

Interestingly enough, the damage bonus from Named Bullet is not typed or named, so this would indicate yes, at least without references from the author regarding intent.

However, in my games I would say no and errata the damage to have a type (so a +2 luck bonus to damage, for instance)

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Why make such a house rule? \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan Nov 8 '14 at 0:07
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ In cases where a spell has a Lesser, Moderate, and Greater version of itself, you would have significantly more of a spell's effect than the original authors of the spell expected you to have at once. Things like this wouldn't have been caught in a playtest so they haven't been balanced. It's a valid judgement call by the GM to say that spells of the same tree don't stack unless they explicitly say they do. \$\endgroup\$ – Axoren Nov 8 '14 at 0:12
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Axoren What example make you think such a thing's slipped passed the editors and is so strong to require such a house rule? Further, there's a significant difference between saying the lesser and greater versions of a spell just don't have a cumulative effect with the higher-level spell taking precedence and changing an unnamed bonus to a named bonus. \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan Nov 8 '14 at 0:31
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @HeyICanChan Oh, I see. Dyson was implying that the bonuses of the spell shouldn't stack rather than the spell's effects. I misinterpreted him. I can think of no such example where the bonuses need more policing then the general effects to require that level of errata (naming unnamed bonuses). I preferred the other option you mentioned: taking the higher spell to take precedence over the others. \$\endgroup\$ – Axoren Nov 8 '14 at 0:36
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I was right on track to upvote, right up until you suggested naming an unnamed bonus as a houserule fix. That is a HUGE nerf, for absolutely no good reason. Preventing a related basic and greater spell from stacking with each other is unnecessary, but reasonable. Preventing them from stacking from a whole class of other effects that they were clearly and explicitly designed to stack with is not. \$\endgroup\$ – Matthew Najmon May 1 '15 at 13:24
3
\$\begingroup\$

Your understanding is incorrect. You can have multiple copies of a spell active and functional, but any bonuses they apply won't stack unless they are dodge bonuses (or unnamed, circumstance, or racial provided they count as coming from different sources). You are probably thinking of the following rule section:

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).

(from Combining Magic Effects)

That section of the rules tries to explain, in general terms, what happens when you apply multiple spells at once. That's why it uses terms like 'usually', 'most', etc to qualify it's descriptions, so that it's clear they aren't rules that spells need to explicitly make exceptions for so much as general defaults helpful to understand how the system works. There is one annoying exception, though, if you play a strict RAW game:

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 one with the highest strength applies.

This one section fails to qualify itself as not actually a rule, and is inconsistent with the behavior of the system without it, which makes it efficacious at changing the system. According to this, only multiple identical spells with differing strengths are subject to a blanket non-stacking regulation. If the identical spells have the same strength, they apply normally. Strength is, of course, not clearly defined-- because the rule is in a section of broad advice and descriptive text, and is probably not intended to be a rule-- but, in any case, multiple castings of the same spell at the same CL from the same spell slot level in the same environmental conditions under the same buffs will have the same 'strength' by any reasonable metric, and that's generally what happens when you cast the same spell multiple times.

Named Bullet does not provide any bonuses to anything. It causes a weapon to deal extra damage when used; it does not provide a bonus to a weapon's damage roll. Multiple castings of Named Bullet have a cumulative effect, as do multiple castings of Greater Named Bullet, and they combine without issue.

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.