D&D 5E Magic Item Stacking

[Falling Icicle]

We know that player ability scores cap at 20, at least without magic, and monster ability scores cap at 30. A character or creature gets at most a +6 proficiency bonus from its level/HD, due to bounded accuracy. So even though they will no doubt be making some improvements to the monsters, we know what kind of number ranges we're dealing with as far as attack bonuses are concerned.

It's possible right now, with just the meager list of magic items we have in the packet, to have an AC approaching 30 (+3 full plate: 21, +1 mountain dwarf, +2 shield, +1 ring of protection, +3 defending weapon, +1 ioun stone). That's an AC of 29, and I'm not even assuming a +X magic shield, since we aren't entirely sure those will exist. If they do, that can potentially add another +1 or even more. I'm also assuming only one ring of protection and one ioun stone, but there's technically nothing in the rules preventing you from having more than one of those. The ring of protection requires attunement, but this example character could still have 2 such rings, as the only other item he has that requires attunement is the defending weapon. And then there's buffing spells, which can add even more. Throw in a barkskin or haste spell, and this character has an AC of 31. The mightiest monster in the game, Asmodeus, has an attack bonus of +10. And that's pretty much what you'd expect from a level 20 monster, given the math they're using and bounded accuracy. An AC of 30+ means even Asmodeus can only hit you on a roll of 20. So I can confidently say that magic item stacking as it is currently written breaks the game.

 

[Sadrik]

Barbarian
AC 29
13 base, bracers of defense
+5 DEX
+5 CON
+1 warforged
+1 ring of protection
+3 defending weapon
+1 ioun stone

Barbarian is the highest AC class! Awesome! --Not

Fighter
AC 28
19 base Plate +1
+1 Dwarf
+1 ring
+1 ioun stone
+1 defense fighting style
+3 defender greatsword

 

[ccooke]

Barbarian
AC 31
13 base, bracers of defense
+5 DEX
+5 CON
+2 shield
+1 warforged
+1 ring of protection
+3 defending weapon
+1 ioun stone

Barbarian is the highest AC class! Awesome! --Not

Okay.

So, going by the standard rules, you have 30 point buy. The closest you can get is 16,15, 11,10,10,10 with that - note that according to the chargen rules you can't buy anything over 16. Warforged get +1 to STR and CON, so you end up with Str 12, Dex 16, Con 16, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10.

Barbarians get stat increases at levels 4, 9, 13, 16 and 18. Since you can get +2 to a stat from those, the barbarian can get to 18 Dex at level 4, 20 at level 9, 18 Con at level 13 and finally 20 Con at level 16.

So, you've put 16 levels into being a massive tank, with tons of hit points and AC.

You've managed to find a "very rare" Defender greatsword. Oh, it's a greatsword - so you can't use a shield at the same time, because it's two handed. You attune to it, though, getting *up to* +3 to AC, which you can allocate at the cost of not getting the +3 to attack and damage.

You've also found a rare Ring of Protection, and attuned to it. And a rare Ioun Stone, which is floating around your head for anyone to target. Or steal.

So, not before level 16, using every available trick, a Barbarian can if they're incredibly lucky and get just the right set of attunable items get to an AC of 26, with an option to sometimes be at 29 when not surprised.

I think I'm happy with that as the upper bound. Good luck getting close to it in any game I run.

(And if I had a group that wanted that power level, I don't think I'd have any difficulty coming up with challenges for them)

 

[Kobold Stew]

So, not before level 16, using every available trick, a Barbarian can if they're incredibly lucky and get just the right set of attunable items get to an AC of 26, with an option to sometimes be at 29 when not surprised.

That's a good start. There are more problems with this proposed build.

Bracers of Defence grant 13+DEX when you use no armor or shield.

So the +5 CON doesn't count in the proposed build either; better not to have the Bracers and use the Barbarian ability. So that's 23, maxing at 26 by my reckoning, for a level 16 Warforged Barbarian with the ring, weapon, and ioun stone.

On the other hand, Falling Icicle's build:

+3 full plate: 21, +1 mountain dwarf, +2 shield, +1 ring of protection, +3 defending weapon, +1 ioun stone

can be supplemented if a fighter takes a the Defense fighting style (+1).

And, just before we all cry "Broken": Asmodeus still has a number of effects that can hurt this well-armoured dwarf: Authority of Nessus, Infernal Domination, spellcasting, etc.

EDIT: Shield can't be used with defending great sword; full plate should only be +1. Great catch in post 17 by ccooke ! Still, defense fighting style still adds +1.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think this can cause some issues though. If you get +1 to AC from a ring of protection and then you have +1 armor, they stack or do not stack. Based on what you say they do not. You cast barkskin and prayer, they stack or do not stack? You have a +1 shield and a defender weapon? The problem is that in some of those case you may want them to stack. In others you do not. This does not give you enough mobility to allow for that.

Of course any rule will have its own issues. My proposal is admittedly driven by my desire to keep it as simple as possible.

All these examples would not stack under my proposed rule. I don't know if I would want some of these to stack. I don't have a strong opinion on any of these, they may stack they may not... therefore they may just not!

I don't think it's a good idea to agree upon a rule here, based on narrative opinions on what should stack, because those can be very different among people. For example, someone may very much think that the shield on the left and the defending weapon on the right work independently, thus they should stack. Someone else may think that they aren't necessarily independent [i.e. you can hardly use them both against the same attack], so their combined bonus doesn't have to be the sum of them. The problem is that we can argue forever about each case, and this is not a good approach IMO for defining a default rule.

A caveat we can keep in mind, is that there is nothing to stop a DM to say that in her campaign these 2 magic bonuses stack. But the opposite would be true also, if they stacked (as they do now) and I don't like so, I can say that in my campaign instead they don't. It's a caveat just to lessen the flames of the discussion a bit, but of course it can't be used as an excuse for making you accept my proposed rule... Here, I just mean to say that I don't worry too much about the specific cases, but rather about the overall results of the default rule.

With that in mind, here is my concerns summarized:

- if nothing stacks, we are going to need at least some exceptions (cover, shields), and it would be quite awkward for players, to frequently find instances where the get a bonus from race and class but they don't add up, then they take a feat and realize it doesn't work as expected etc.

- if everything (mundane and magic bonuses) stacks, there's a chance of threatening bounded accuracy and of encouraging min-maxing, xmas tree effect, etc. plus (maybe) more frequent calculations during combat

- if mundane bonuses stack but magic bonuses don't (my idea), those problems are significantly lessened, since mundane bonuses are limited in number while magic bonuses can accumulate almost without limit, and since the bonuses which update more frequently are those from spells being cast during combat

- if we go back to a keyword-based system with plenty of keywords, all those problems remain, the only difference is that the difference between players with "system mastery" and the others is increase (we know this from 3e)

- if we use a keyword-based system with only few keywords (like your example), it also lessens those problems, but it's definitely an extra chunk of rules to learn, even for a group which doesn't use a lot of magic items

 

[delericho]

Put me down for another vote for "no stacking". KISS principle, plus it supports the whole "bounded accuracy" concept.

I'm fine with "no stacking", but it does need to mean "no stacking". The moment they start making exceptions, you can bet we'll start getting loads of items showing up in supplements with those exceptions listed. And, since those supplements realistically can't be exhaustively tested against one another, that will quickly turn into a mess.

Unfortunately, if they're going to allow stacking at all, and assuming they do actually want to sell supplements, then they really need something like the 3e keyword system, so that there's a consistent set of rules for how things interact without having to juggle several hundred special cases.

(Though it's worth noting that even the keyword system in 3e was widely abused, and by the WotC designers themselves in fact - they would regularly introduce new bonus types just so they could then create a raft of new spells, items, and powers that gave bonuses of those types. So, a hard "no stacking" rule may well be best.)

 

[ccooke]

Okay, looking at Falling Icicle's build, then...
It is: "+3 full plate: 21, +1 mountain dwarf, +2 shield, +1 ring of protection, +3 defending weapon, +1 ioun stone"

Okay. Taking that from the top...
There is no such thing as "+3 plate armour" in the playtest rules.
There is no such thing as "+3 armour" in the playtest rules. The highest magical bonus that exists is +2, on the efreeti chain.
Certainly you can invent some, but the rules all suggest it would be unusual. If the DM gives out a +3 armour, then they've already gone against the advice in the rules.

Next up, there is no such thing as a "Defending weapon" in the rules. What there *is*, is "Defender", a +3 greatsword which you can actively transfer some or all of that bonus into AC. As it's a greatsword, you can't use it at the same time as a shield.

So, Full Plate (18) + 1 mountain dwarf, +1 ring of protection, +1 ioun stone, with up to +3 from Defender.
That's AC 21, with the ability to get to 24 if not surprised. And you have three magic items in a system that defaults to magic-rare.

Again, that seems fine to me

If the GM decides to subvert the advice in the rules (which they're completely entitled to - it's their game), then they should know that they need to alter some other details to match. If you're allowing 3e/4e style common +X items, then you know you need to bump every monster's to-hit bonus every few levels. And that's absolutely fine.
As a rule of thumb, if you as a GM expect every PC to have a +1 weapon and +1 armour, then increasing all monster AC and to-hit by +1 will keep the challenge rating where it should be. That is, after all, the expectation that was removed from 5e with bounded accuracy.

 

[Li Shenron]

I'm fine with "no stacking", but it does need to mean "no stacking". The moment they start making exceptions, you can bet we'll start getting loads of items showing up in supplements with those exceptions listed. And, since those supplements realistically can't be exhaustively tested against one another, that will quickly turn into a mess.

Yes, perhaps exceptions should be left to individual DMs to make.

Unfortunately, if they're going to allow stacking at all, and assuming they do actually want to sell supplements, then they really need something like the 3e keyword system, so that there's a consistent set of rules for how things interact without having to juggle several hundred special cases.

(Though it's worth noting that even the keyword system in 3e was widely abused, and by the WotC designers themselves in fact - they would regularly introduce new bonus types just so they could then create a raft of new spells, items, and powers that gave bonuses of those types. So, a hard "no stacking" rule may well be best.)

Exactly! The keyword system did not prevent abuse, it only encouraged system mastery in order to abuse, and even if you didn't want to abuse you still needed to get familiar with the keyword system.

How about presenting a keyword system as an optional module in the Advanced rules, targetted at monty haul games?

For everybody else, a default KISS rule would be so much better.

 

[delericho]

Yes, perhaps exceptions should be left to individual DMs to make.

Yes, I would get behind that.

Exactly! The keyword system did not prevent abuse...

The thing that annoyed me about the keyword system wasn't that it didn't prevent abuse, but rather that it was the WotC designers who were abusing it! If they'd stuck with a fixed, manageable list of keywords (probably the one presented in the DMG), it would have been fine. But instead, they had to add a keyword for this, a keyword for that... and the final list (as in the RC) is quite absurd.

it only encouraged system mastery in order to abuse

Any system where some things stack and others don't encourages system mastery, it's just that instead of learning one keyword system and then looking out for tags you have to search through hundreds of items. This actually has the effect of widening the gap between the "optimisers" (who are willing to do that work) and the "casuals" (who aren't).

"Everything stacks" works well. "Nothing stacks" works well. And, indeed, your suggestion of "nothing stacks, except for specific exceptions made by the DM" works well. But if the rules are going to specify that some things stack but not other, they really shouldn't be burying that detail in the item descriptions. Well, unless the number of items is going to be small, and is going to remain small.

How about presenting a keyword system as an optional module in the Advanced rules, targetted at monty haul games?

For everybody else, a default KISS rule would be so much better.

Eh. In theory, that would work. But I'm leery of just assigning everything to modules. I'm inclined to think that a module with either by widely adopted (and so become assumed by the rules going forward, and essentially be a default), or it won't (and so will atrophy and die). In particular, something like that would probably mean that all new items would need two writeups - one for the KISS option, and then another for the "keyword module". Any other presentation either mingles KISS and keyword data (likely causing confusion for KISS people), or puts related data in two different places (as the "keyword" data gets pulled off into a table separate from the main text).

(Of course, that does work well if you have electronic tools that can be reconfigured according to the modules people choose to use. And that way, you get the best of both worlds.)

 

[Kobold Stew]

So, Full Plate (18) + 1 mountain dwarf, +1 ring of protection, +1 ioun stone, with up to +3 from Defender.
That's AC 21, with the ability to get to 24 if not surprised. And you have three magic items in a system that defaults to magic-rare.

Again, that seems fine to me

Good calls all round, I've edited my post above.

We can get an extra +1 from Defense fighting style.