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

[Jester David]

I'm guessing "cleric and wizard in the party" is probably more than half the parties out there.

With bards, druids, warlocks, and the like a party with both is likely on the minority. A large minority maybe, but still a minority. There's a lot of combinations of party composition.

And even in parties with one or both, not every cleric will prep bless and not every wiz/sorc will learn haste. There's a lot of offensive PCs of both that are not focused on buffing, or support clerics that focus on healing.
So of that minority with a wizard and/or cleric a smaller minority will have bless and/or haste.

And of that fraction that do have one of the spells memorized, it's unlikely to be used every combat, even at high levels.

So it's very much not all the time.

 

[transtemporal]

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.

If you're proposing that effect bonuses overlap instead of stack, you probably have to determine whether the overlap applies only to exactly the same effect and bonus or whether its different effects to the same bonus, for example advantage on an attack roll is basically a bonus to an attack roll so will that supercede the attack bonus from a magic sword too? It sounds like you're heading that way.

You'll make your game harder at the level of melee and ranged combat but you'll alleviate some of the pressure on buff spells which will free up casters to use their spell slots for other uses, i.e. direct damage. If I was a player in that game, I would probably focus on spells that have saving throws since they probably won't change.

 

[Chocolategravy]

With bards, druids, warlocks, and the like a party with both is likely on the minority. A large minority maybe, but still a minority. There's a lot of combinations of party composition.

And even in parties with one or both, not every cleric will prep bless and not every wiz/sorc will learn haste. There's a lot of offensive PCs of both that are not focused on buffing, or support clerics that focus on healing.
So of that minority with a wizard and/or cleric a smaller minority will have bless and/or haste.

And of that fraction that do have one of the spells memorized, it's unlikely to be used every combat, even at high levels.

So it's very much not all the time.

Ugh, you're strawmanning that this is the only combination when there are many other spells and class abilities, making ridiculous claims on party composition and pretending other classes like fighter and bard can't cast haste. Maybe your party is all barbarians, but the point you have yet to give any decent argument against is that most parties will get hit by this stacking issue even if you're intentionally throwing out the magic items WotC put in the modules and intended you to play with because you wrongly believed some off-handed comment a dev twittered during development that has no reflection on the released product.

 

[mearls]

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.

It works out well. We thought about using that rule, but focus group testing showed that people almost never remembered to use stacking rules. So, out they went. (Suspicion is that bonuses are fun. Finding reasons to not use bonuses is un-fun. Nobody wants to be the Scrooge who tells the rest of the table they don't get a bigger bonus).

The rules for concentration essentially do the dirty work of keeping buffs in check.

 

[Jester David]

Ugh, you're strawmanning

Strawman! And drink!

that this is the only combination when there are many other spells and class abilities, making ridiculous claims on party composition and pretending other classes like fighter and bard can't cast haste.

Haste isn't on the bard's list and the fighter and rogue won't get the spell until 14th level, also known as when the wizard and cleric will have 7th level spells. A front line character casting a concentration based spell doesn't have the same *oomf* as finger of death or ressurection.

Maybe your party is all barbarians, but the point you have yet to give any decent argument against is that most parties will get hit by this stacking issue even if you're intentionally throwing out the magic items WotC put in the modules and intended you to play with because you wrongly believed some off-handed comment a dev twittered during development that has no reflection on the released product.

1) Aren't the modules notoriously stingy with magic items? (I seem to remember only a couple +1 weapons in all of Hoard of the Dragon Queen and one +1 armour.)
2) I don't think an article on the development of the game counts as "off-handed" or "twittered".
3) I'm still not convinced stacking is an issue. In actual play, buff spells only come up every few fights. Fights are over fast and the benefit of a minute long buff is often outshined by an instantaneous effect.
4) I like that the spells have an effect rather than are wasted. There's something not-fun about the buffer not being able to do their job because the character already has a morale bonus or enhancement bonus.

 

[Umbran]

Magic doesn't have to be all that consistent.

Actually, it does, for two reasons.

First off, if you look at real-world magical traditions, across cultures, they do have rules. There are things you can expect from them, and ways they work. Those ways are not necessarily science-rational, but there are rules, regardless. The feats magic can perform are grand, but magic is still structured.

Second, this is not just magic, it is magic in a *game*. Games have rules. The players will typically want, and expect, there to be rules they can divine and think about and use. And that's part of what I'm getting at here - if you make a set of weird rules based on what die rolls are affected, the players will try to use that, too, against their foes or for themselves. And then you set yourself up for telling players, "No, because I said so," a lot. And, you look pretty arbitrary, like it really isn't really a rule, and like you don't want the players to have nice things, and don't like to reward them for being clever.

If the point is "keep the bonuses small" you can achieve this without any weird stacking rules - by just giving out smaller magic item awards. Then, you don't put yourself in the position of having to look like you are nerfing what you already gave them.

 

[Jester David]

First off, if you look at real-world magical traditions, across cultures, they do have rules. There are things you can expect from them, and ways they work. Those ways are not necessarily science-rational, but there are rules, regardless. The feats magic can perform are grand, but magic is still structured.

Second, this is not just magic, it is magic in a *game*. Games have rules. The players will typically want, and expect, there to be rules they can divine and think about and use. And that's part of what I'm getting at here - if you make a set of weird rules based on what die rolls are affected, the players will try to use that, too, against their foes or for themselves. And then you set yourself up for telling players, "No, because I said so," a lot. And, you look pretty arbitrary, like it really isn't really a rule, and like you don't want the players to have nice things, and don't like to reward them for being clever.

Well, it's always possible to make your new rules the rules of your world, to wrap the limits in a veneer of flavour and setting specific handwaving.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Ugh, you're strawmanning.

And you said you don't even play 5e, so I have no idea what you're doing. I certainly don't know how you can make a statement about something coming up all the time when that time is a null value.

 

[travathian]

I don't know about game balance, but as a player, it would annoy the out of me to have to figure out what stacks and what doesn't and keep track of them. Game is complicated enough in my mind. If want a game where bonuses don't stack, then D&D isn't your game.

 

[Jeff Albertson]

and balance isn't that strict to begin with.

This transparent, undermining, backhanded slandering towards 5th Ed is very amusing, I will continue to highlight your passive tirade of: 5th Ed is the best horrendous game, I really enjoy playing crap again, golly, I love poorly developed games! …for shame…