Talk: Stack

Dodge not stacking?

You can't stack dodge bonuses from two different items??? I think we need a better example. --The Krit 22:25, 25 August 2006 (PDT)

Stacking bull's strength

You -can- stack multiple castings of Bull's Strength (and the other ability boosters) up the the spells max bonus.

They don't stack, they override. If you drink a Bull's Strength and only get +3, you can drink another and hope you roll better, up to +5. -- Alec Usticke 06:46, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

Item properties

A recent edit to dodge bonus stated that most item properties do not stack if they are on the same item. That got me to wondering if "most" is misleading, so I checked a few. By my quick and not comprehensive test, and going by the often flawed character sheet at times:

Not stacking on a single item: ability bonus, ability penalty, saving throw bonus, and skill bonus.

Stacking on a single item: bonus spell slot and regeneration (Well, multiple regeneration properties are separately applied, rather than added together and applied. Maybe technically not stacking, but stacking in practical terms.)

Now this list needs to be made more complete and verified by gameplay (not relying on the character sheet), but once that is done, it may be a good idea to add this information to this article (and possibly remove "unlike most other item properties" from the dodge bonus article if that is misleading), especially since it impacts a shifter's item merge. Anybody want to test it out? (A word of warning: you might get confused if you modify something like both constitution and fortitude saves at the same time. Or both charisma and animal empathy. I sure can pick bad test cases.) --The Krit 02:29, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

12+12-2 Scenario

I'm not sure of the applicability of the scenario you posted (though it does hold for dodge AC). Because the -2 is at the end you are assuming the progression does not recursively calculate but performs the full calculation each time an effect is added. This does not work for damage immunity, movement speed, and probably other ranges as each will get only the last value and modify it when a new effect is applied (e.g. for damage immunity 75% + 75% - 50% yields 50% because the game registered 100% at the point where 150% would have been reached.) However, this outcome also assumes that the bonus and penalty function on one cap system. This used to apply to ability scores but they were "fixed" in a patch (I don't remember which one but definitely well before the 1.69) so that now the positive and negative are individually subject to there own cap range (in addition to the total score not being able to go below 3). Thus spells like owl's insight cap the respective ability at +12 total bonus, regardless of penalties. I have mentioned before a need for a "caps and stacking" article, as there seem to be rather large stacking differences from one category to the next. WhiZard 21:42, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

• You are making up meanings for several words. It is going to take me some time to figure out what you mean. --The Krit 19:09, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

• I am not making up meanings for words. I pointed out two patterns which many stacking categories use, and I have put an explained example for both of them (two for the last one, if you count my below reply). The pattern that dodge uses is not the same as either recursive stacking (e.g. damage immunity), or a multi-layered cap system (e.g. ability scores). WhiZard 21:02, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

• I have no desire to enter a semantics argument at this time, so I am going to give one example of you misusing a word and leave it at that. A recursive calculation is one in which a part of the calculation is performed by invoking itself on simpler inputs until a base case is reached. This is rarely (if ever) the only way to perform the calculation; often the same results can be obtained by a looping algorithm, albeit likely a rather complex one. Recursion is a strategy for making a calculation; it does not affect the outcome. A recursive calculation and a non-recursive calculation can produce the same results for all inputs, just typically with different levels of computational complexity. Saying that a calculation's result assumes the calculation is not performed recursively is ludicrous. Therefore, you are either being inane or you are making up a new meaning for "recursively calculate". I decided to assume the latter. --The Krit 13:20, June 16, 2012 (UTC)
  Edit: I'll even throw in an example before abandoning this line of discussion. A factorial can be calculated recursively, as in 6! = 6×(5!). It can also be calculated with a loop, as in 6! = 6×5×4×3×2×1, (or in words: start with 6, then loop from 5 down to 1 and multiply the product so far by the loop number). You get the same result (720) with either algorithm, even though the the first is calculated recursively, while the second is not. --The Krit 14:00, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

• di(new) = apply cap(di(old) + NewEffect). Try it out. 75%, then 75%, then -50% yields 50% immunity. -50%, then 75%, then 75% yields 100% immunity. Two different results based on the ordering of the effects. This would be an example where dodge by not regarding using the value of the cap when it is exceeded, but treating all ordering of the effects the same demonstrates that "a calculation's result assumes the calculation is not performed recursively." WhiZard 20:43, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

• Of course I am going to try it out. That is how I intend to figure out what you mean. (I'm willing to assume that you were trying to describe how the game functions. So once I determine how the game functions, I will know what you meant.) --The Krit 02:48, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

• Uh huh dont understand really but the current article is incorrect at penalties. The penalty to the ability score is counts first, and if you equip the Blood Plate armor, then you can not get +12con anymore even you get +20ability from items/spells. Mean - base con is X, but penalties applies first so you have a X-2 as base, then are added ability bonuses capped at +12, thus you get X+10 at best. 77.92.213.119 19:49, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

• Not quite, bonus and penalties are separately calculated. Bonuses go to +12, penalties go to -30. The total penalty after -30 cap is applied is added to the total bonus after the +12 cap is applied (then this total + base is subject to the 3 minimum). Thus a 38 base strength character cannot have his modified strength be lower than 8 + bonuses, nor higher than 50 - penalties. WhiZard 20:42, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

Poisons and diseases

Anyone know if poisons and diseases stack? And if so, are there any restrictions (e.g. cannot be same type of poison/disease)?

173.56.83.123 22:59, December 20, 2012 (UTC)

• Poison and disease will stack with each other, but if you are under the influence of a poison you are immune to the addition of another poison, and similarly if you are under the influence of a disease you are immune to the addition of another disease. WhiZard (talk) 23:02, December 20, 2012 (UTC)

Overlap, coexists, replace, displace, anything else to avoid "stack" or "not stack"

Since latest revision I must ask where you've get these informations? I don't recall anything like this in manual, nor in spellscripts neither in rules NWN iss based on.

The previous revision had only two concepts: stack or doesn't stack. This was pretty clear. Seems you've added some unknown concepts in order to justify several inconsistencies in spells that doesn't stack with each other.

I don't deny the existence of the overlap concept. But does spell replaces itself or it means it doesn't overlaps? Does spell displaces another spell or these two spells doesn't stack with each other? 77.92.213.119 16:16, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

• My information comes from basic mastery of the English language, something you are rather short on. The key word is "cumulative", and that has not changed. The new concepts merely illustrate ways things might be not cumulative, hence not stacking. As for your questions, they are nonsensical, as each asks for a choice between two options that are the same. --The Krit (talk) 18:28, February 3, 2013 (UTC)