Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kerrick" data-source="post: 4578394" data-attributes="member: 4722">Good call. That would further divorce them from actual &quot;bonuses&quot;.Circumstance can be a penalty, too, not just a bonus. I agree that it's an external factor; I was going to push for keeping it stackable with everything (via a special exception), but then I thought... why? It could just as easily override an ongoing spell effect, since circumstance bonuses seldom apply for more than a round or two anyway. I'm not sure - it could go either way, really; luck/chance is such an odd thing that it's hard to define.Hmm. &quot;Modifier&quot; generally means &quot;bonus OR penalty&quot;, and armor and shields only apply a bonus. We could call the &quot;stack with anything&quot; bonuses inherent bonuses, as they always apply (see below for more on inherent bonuses).I've seen trolls in plate mail - Return to Castle Zagyg, back in 1E. I see your point, though, and I'm inclined to agree. BUT... it makes sense that it would be harder to pierce armor AND a tough hide, rather than just armor alone.I use UK's system for natural armor, actually, which is based on the one in the MM (though I made some modifications):[sblock]Normal skin (humans): 0 + 1/8 HDTough skin/Fur/Bone (Dire bear): 1-2 + 1/4 HDTough hide (dinosaur): 2-3 + 1/3 HDScaly skin/exoskeleton (lizardfolk): 3-4 + 1/2 HDCarapace/plated (gorgon):5-8 + 2/3 HDConstruct (golem): size + 3/4 HDEach creature also gets a bonus to NA based on its size: Small -1, Large +3, Huge +5, Gargantuan +8, Colossal +13, etc.[/sblock]Pretty much. I was going to say that I didn't really see the need for inherent bonuses myself, for much the same reason.That's not a bad idea, actually. If PCs have a higher cap (or no cap at all) for bonuses from wishes and tomes, they can simply boost their stats as they will and rely less on magic items.That was probably me. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> I saw it on the PF forums and mentioned it here.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kerrick, post: 4578394, member: 4722"] Good call. That would further divorce them from actual "bonuses". Circumstance can be a penalty, too, not just a bonus. I agree that it's an external factor; I was going to push for keeping it stackable with everything (via a special exception), but then I thought... why? It could just as easily override an ongoing spell effect, since circumstance bonuses seldom apply for more than a round or two anyway. I'm not sure - it could go either way, really; luck/chance is such an odd thing that it's hard to define. Hmm. "Modifier" generally means "bonus OR penalty", and armor and shields only apply a bonus. We could call the "stack with anything" bonuses inherent bonuses, as they always apply (see below for more on inherent bonuses). I've seen trolls in plate mail - Return to Castle Zagyg, back in 1E. I see your point, though, and I'm inclined to agree. BUT... it makes sense that it would be harder to pierce armor AND a tough hide, rather than just armor alone. I use UK's system for natural armor, actually, which is based on the one in the MM (though I made some modifications): [sblock]Normal skin (humans): 0 + 1/8 HD Tough skin/Fur/Bone (Dire bear): 1-2 + 1/4 HD Tough hide (dinosaur): 2-3 + 1/3 HD Scaly skin/exoskeleton (lizardfolk): 3-4 + 1/2 HD Carapace/plated (gorgon):5-8 + 2/3 HD Construct (golem): size + 3/4 HD Each creature also gets a bonus to NA based on its size: Small -1, Large +3, Huge +5, Gargantuan +8, Colossal +13, etc.[/sblock] Pretty much. I was going to say that I didn't really see the need for inherent bonuses myself, for much the same reason. That's not a bad idea, actually. If PCs have a higher cap (or no cap at all) for bonuses from wishes and tomes, they can simply boost their stats as they will and rely less on magic items. That was probably me. :p I saw it on the PF forums and mentioned it here. [/QUOTE]

Verification