Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Olgar Shiverstone" data-source="post: 6209973" data-attributes="member: 5868">I'd prefer to delete the term &quot;type&quot; for bonuses altogether, and only refer to the bonus source.&nbsp; So &quot;no stacking&quot; means &quot;bonuses from the same source do not stack.&quot;&nbsp; Sources are equipment (armor, shield base capability), ability score, race feature, class feature, feat, magic, and circumstance (this last to give the DM the ability to &quot;adjust on the fly&quot;, and account for things like cover).That way you can still get the benefits of things like race and class bonus, and there's a value to magic items of increasing proportion, but it doesn't get out of control, and it's not so prohibitive that it makes the game boring.&nbsp; Someone above interpreted &quot;no stacking&quot; as nothing ever stacks, ever, so that for example there's no benefit to wearing armor and adding a shield, or from taking cover behind something if you're already wearing armor -- that's certainly not what I meant by &quot;no stacking&quot;.So for example, a mountain dwarf fighter in +1 plate armor carrying a shield would get an AC benefit from his race (+1), armor (+8), shield (+1) and magic (+1 on plate).&nbsp; If he put on a +1 ring of protection, his AC would remain the same; if the party druid cast barkskin on him his AC would go temproarily go up by 1, since the +2 bonus from magic would not tack with the existing +1 magic bonus from his armor.&nbsp; If he took cover, he'd get the additional +4 bonus, since that's a circumstance.I think this is simple enough to keep track of in practice, since most bonus sources are not situational, and still leaves room for creativity in character choices, but keeps down synergistic bloat from stacking of bonuses from multiple magic sources or multiple feats.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Olgar Shiverstone, post: 6209973, member: 5868"] I'd prefer to delete the term "type" for bonuses altogether, and only refer to the bonus source. So "no stacking" means "bonuses from the same source do not stack." Sources are equipment (armor, shield base capability), ability score, race feature, class feature, feat, magic, and circumstance (this last to give the DM the ability to "adjust on the fly", and account for things like cover). That way you can still get the benefits of things like race and class bonus, and there's a value to magic items of increasing proportion, but it doesn't get out of control, and it's not so prohibitive that it makes the game boring. Someone above interpreted "no stacking" as nothing ever stacks, ever, so that for example there's no benefit to wearing armor and adding a shield, or from taking cover behind something if you're already wearing armor -- that's certainly not what I meant by "no stacking". So for example, a mountain dwarf fighter in +1 plate armor carrying a shield would get an AC benefit from his race (+1), armor (+8), shield (+1) and magic (+1 on plate). If he put on a +1 ring of protection, his AC would remain the same; if the party druid cast barkskin on him his AC would go temproarily go up by 1, since the +2 bonus from magic would not tack with the existing +1 magic bonus from his armor. If he took cover, he'd get the additional +4 bonus, since that's a circumstance. I think this is simple enough to keep track of in practice, since most bonus sources are not situational, and still leaves room for creativity in character choices, but keeps down synergistic bloat from stacking of bonuses from multiple magic sources or multiple feats. [/QUOTE]

Verification