Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6044582" data-attributes="member: 42582">[MENTION=78958]Empirate[/MENTION], thanks for your reply.Look at the post between ours: it suggests the use of a Disjunction ring (ie a 9th level spell!) to solve the problem.So my suggestion is: think about changing the stacking rules (either de facto, via gentlemen's agreement, or de jure); talk it through with the players; let them rebuild their PCs to the extent that is required to give effect to any gentlemen's agreement or rules change.Versus: as a GM, without discussing it with the players, introduce an item with just about as powerful an effect as is possible within the game&nbsp; so as to destroy the stacking items. Which is a better way of handling problems with stacking? Obviously it depends on the group, but I think my way - recognise the rules problem for what it is and talk about how to change the game framework or the approach to PC building so as to dea with it - is less likely to produce conflict or resentment at the table than an approach which looks to me like adversarial GMing, and leaves the player with nothing to show for all those invested resources but a handful of ash-that-once-was-items.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6044582, member: 42582"] [MENTION=78958]Empirate[/MENTION], thanks for your reply. Look at the post between ours: it suggests the use of a Disjunction ring (ie a 9th level spell!) to solve the problem. So my suggestion is: think about changing the stacking rules (either de facto, via gentlemen's agreement, or de jure); talk it through with the players; let them rebuild their PCs to the extent that is required to give effect to any gentlemen's agreement or rules change. Versus: as a GM, without discussing it with the players, introduce an item with just about as powerful an effect as is possible within the game so as to destroy the stacking items. Which is a better way of handling problems with stacking? Obviously it depends on the group, but I think my way - recognise the rules problem for what it is and talk about how to change the game framework or the approach to PC building so as to dea with it - is less likely to produce conflict or resentment at the table than an approach which looks to me like adversarial GMing, and leaves the player with nothing to show for all those invested resources but a handful of ash-that-once-was-items. [/QUOTE]

Verification