Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Magic Item Stacking
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6208753" data-attributes="member: 1465"><p>Of course any rule will have its own issues. My proposal is admittedly driven by my desire to keep it as simple as possible. </p><p></p><p>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! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>With that in mind, here is my concerns summarized:</p><p></p><p>- 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.</p><p></p><p>- 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</p><p></p><p>- 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</p><p></p><p>- 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)</p><p></p><p>- 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</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 6208753, member: 1465"] 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 [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Magic Item Stacking
Top