D&D 5E How would imposing no stacking of magic affect 5E game balance?

[Quartz]

Subject really asks it all, but just to elaborate, suppose no magic spells or effects stack on the d20 roll at all? If you have a +3 sword and Guidance in effect, they don't stack (so you better roll a 4). If you have +1 armour and +1 shield, they don't stack. If you have a +3 sword and a Belt of Giant Strength, they don't stack.

 

[Tormyr]

Not a whole lot. One of those items does not provide a huge jump over base stats (except in the case of the belt), and doubling them up does not provide a huge jump over the single item. It really seems like it would adjust where "normal" was at the table. I personally would not do it, but YMMV.

 

[jodyjohnson]

I've proposed it as a house rule and I think it is reasonable.

The main issue is that it adds a bit of overhead to the flow of the game. If someone has a +1 Longsword and gets Bless they have to remember '1' gets them nothing and '2' through '4' on the die benefits them 1 less. Little complications that can work against quick math at the table.

But if you have a group that is already working the math hard and eaking out bonuses they can handle a little complication.

Personally I draw the stacking lines at different places depending on what I want to emphasize.

 

[neobolts]

With magic item frequency low by default and many spells being concentration, I don't think this will come up often enough that I would see the need to house rule it. Also, an extra +1 doesn't carry that much oomph in 5e like in previous editions.

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't like completely unrelated effects not stacking. I think it is simpler to just not stack same-type effects.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Subject really asks it all, but just to elaborate, suppose no magic spells or effects stack on the d20 roll at all? If you have a +3 sword and Guidance in effect, they don't stack (so you better roll a 4). If you have +1 armour and +1 shield, they don't stack. If you have a +3 sword and a Belt of Giant Strength, they don't stack.

Wouldn't hurt game balance appreciably. Magic items aren't factored into the game's design, and balance isn't that strict to begin with.

The idea with magic items is that they're rare and they make a character with one 'just better.' Not stacking would mean that the party should spread 'em around a little. Not a terrible thing - certainly not a terrible thing for balance among the PCs.

Spell slots are pretty scarce so further discouraging casters from piling buffs on allies would just reduce the pressure on that resource a little.

 

[Umbran]

If you have a +3 sword and a Belt of Giant Strength, they don't stack.

Having two effects that give a flat magical +X to hit (Like a +3 Sword and Guidance) not stack, I can understand.

The Belt of Giant Strength, however, is a different beast. It isn't giving a flat bonus to a die roll - it is changing the character's strength. The magic of the +3 sword and an 18 strength stack, so why wouldn't a 20+ strength also stack? It shouldn't matter where that strength comes from.

 

[Chocolategravy]

With magic item frequency low by default and many spells being concentration, I don't think this will come up often enough that I would see the need to house rule it. Also, an extra +1 doesn't carry that much oomph in 5e like in previous editions.

It comes up. All. The. Time. Bless is a big culprit. It + paladin aura, all the time. Any magic weapon in the party + Bless, all the time. Haste + any magical defense, all the time. Sacred weapon + Bless + magical weapon, all the time.

Wouldn't hurt game balance appreciably. Magic items aren't factored into the game's design, and balance isn't that strict to begin with.

Magic items most definitely ARE factored into the game design.

 

[Quartz]

The Belt of Giant Strength, however, is a different beast. It isn't giving a flat bonus to a die roll - it is changing the character's strength. The magic of the +3 sword and an 18 strength stack, so why wouldn't a 20+ strength also stack?

Because the boosted strength is a magical effect - put the character in an anti-magic field and it goes away. If a Barbarian had 26 Str (possible with the appropriate Tome or Libram) then that would count as natural, because it wouldn't go away in an AMF.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It comes up. All. The. Time. Bless is a big culprit. It + paladin aura, all the time. Any magic weapon in the party + Bless, all the time. Haste + any magical defense, all the time. Sacred weapon + Bless + magical weapon, all the time.

A couple of those sound like they already shouldn't stack, but, OK, if you have the right (wrong?) mix of classes in the party, like that, this variant would bring you back down to a comparable level with a party that didn't. It'd also remove a temptation to be profligate with spell resources.

Doesn't sound /bad/ for balance.

Magic items most definitely ARE factored into the game design.

I'm just repeating what Mr. Mearls said all through the playtest and continued to insist was their design philosophy. Take it up with him if you think he was being less than completely forthcoming - I'm sure he's never gotten that before.