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="delericho" data-source="post: 6208805" data-attributes="member: 22424"><p>Yes, I would get behind that.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The thing that annoyed me about the keyword system wasn't that it didn't prevent abuse, but rather that it was <em>the WotC designers</em> 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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>"Everything stacks" works well. "Nothing stacks" works well. And, indeed, your suggestion of "nothing stacks, except for specific exceptions <em>made by the DM</em>" 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 <em>remain</em> small.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>(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.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="delericho, post: 6208805, member: 22424"] Yes, I would get behind that. The thing that annoyed me about the keyword system wasn't that it didn't prevent abuse, but rather that it was [i]the WotC designers[/i] 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. 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 [i]made by the DM[/i]" 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 [i]remain[/i] small. 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.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Magic Item Stacking
Top