Do you remove unnamed bonuses? And stacking bonuses?

[Quartz]

Well, do you? When I next GM, I intend to do away with all unnamed bonuses. I will class them, even if I have to invent new classes.

And talk me out of making all like-classed bonuses non-stackable (e.g. Dodge bonuses and Luck bonuses currently stack, whereas most others don't). I'm aware that this may require rejigging a feat or two.

 

[frankthedm]

I don't allow a lot of non core rules stuff. When I do allow it most abilities get a care full eye at balance.

BTW Just say No to the Dervish.

 

[Nail]

IMC I've condensed all bonuses given by magic of any kind (spell, Sp, Su) into one: Enhancement. This new Enhancement stacks with itself, to a max of +10.

Reason: ease of use. Having different typed bonuses in 3.xe D&D does nothing for the balance of the game, and increases "calculation/cross-checking" time during game.

[EDIT]How is this not a "house rules" question, BTW? Maybe I'm interpreting the OP's question incorrectly.

 

[Musrum]

IMO an unnamed bonus is poor design.
I switch things around so that instead of an unnamed bonus stacking with anything, it stacks with nothing.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

IMO an unnamed bonus is poor design.

I'm on the other side. I think unnamed bonuses are excellent design.

What is poor design is creating named bonuses which stack with similarly-named bonuses (other than, say, the blanket stacking on Dodge bonuses).

"A +2 bonus to X"? Good.

"A +2 sacred bonus to X which stacks with other sacred bonuses"? No good.

 

[mvincent]

I intend to do away with all unnamed bonuses.

Do you have any specific problems that they have caused? Using core only, I have found none that caused problems.

Luck bonuses currently stack

They do?

 

[Vuron]

Unnamed Bonuses are generally pretty significant factors in the min/max arsenal. If you are wanting to limit that sort of behavior this might be a decent way of doing it.