Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6209986" data-attributes="member: 1465">This got me thinking a bit further...I definitely prefer a game where magic items are few and important ("magic as wonder"), over a game where they are many but mere trinkets (aka "magic as technology").But what about those who actually like playing in settings with "magic as technology"? I certainly don't want their gamestyle to be unsupported. The question is, how much can the stacking rules ruin a game with "magic as wonder" or with "magic as technology"?Actually, perhaps it's not that critical... In a "magic as wonder" you expect each PC to have but a few magic items maximum, so the chances that they boost the same thing may be low (also because you are more likely to have larger bonuses). When they do stack, probably a non-stacking rule is a little bit disappointing. But IMXP it is more typical of these games to have ad-hoc DM's rules on how magic items interact, so the DM is more likely to handwave that limitation.Example: Bob the 20th level Fighter has found the Armor of Ancient Awesomeness that grants a +10 AC plus Haste, Fly and Improved Invisibility 1/day (but every time there's a 5% chance the armor takes over his will and force him to attack a friend). He then acquires the Shield of Sheer Superiority, which grants another +5 AC, Improved Evasion and immunity to Magic Missiles. Not stacking the AC bonus to +15 may reduce the fun in such an over-the-top game, but since this gamestyle is mostly based on DM's custom magic items, the DM can just say they stack (after all, she could have just made either be +15 since the start).In a "magic as technology" the PCs instead will probably have many items each, but they will all have proportionally smaller benefits. It's not automatic, but IMXP most of the times this gamestyle goes together with having easy buying/selling of items. If they stack, this encourages min-maxers to boost a target feature of their PC as much as possible, while other players are not affected much. A (hard) non-stacking rule is probably just going to force min-maxers to be like everybody else. A keyword-based system only has the effect of making min-maxers feel more rewarded by exploiting it. (Remains to be seen if min-maxers behaviour spoils the fun of the rest of your group... if they are all min-maxers then it's ok!)Example: Bob the 20th level Fighter has bought a +3 armor, a +1 amulet of natural armor, a +2 ring of protection, a +2 shield, a +1 defending weapon, a +2 bracers of deflection, a +2 cloak of concealment, a +1 boots of dodging, a +2 helm of ucanttouchme, a +1 skirt of missage, a +2 goggles of cantbehit, and a +1 pearl of noway hidden in a secret recess of his body. +20 AC if stacking, +3 if not, but the point being that in the latter case Bob would simply have bought something else besides the armor.Currently it does help against stacking, but I would not count on the attunement rules to provide a safe setup... I have the feeling that they will be treated as optional or house ruled regularly.This is also what I wish for. "No stacking" for spells and magic items bonuses, a little bit as if there was also one keyword "magic" (for both of them) and only bonuses with such keyword overlap, while everything else stacks.There can still be occasional exceptions in the form of e.g. a spell which actually creates a physical cover.</blockquote>

Verification