Rules of the Game Part 2

[Hypersmurf]

Looks good.

Nice to have armor enhancement bonuses spelled out clearly so we can point people to it and say "See? It modifies the armor bonus of the armor. It doesn't modify your AC directly, so the +3 enhancement bonus on your leather armor won't stack with the +6 armor bonus on your Bracers!"

-Hyp.

 

[MichaelH]

Someone actually tried to do that? :0

 

[Hypersmurf]

It's not an uncommon misconception.

"I have three bonuses to my armor class. +2 armor bonus from my leather armor; +3 enhancement bonus from the armor; and +6 armor bonus from my Bracers. Armor bonuses don't stack, so that's a total of +6 in armor bonus, but enhancement bonuses aren't armor bonuses, so the +3 stacks with the +6 for a total of +9."

If enhancement bonuses actually increased your AC, they'd be right. But they don't; they increase the armor bonus of your armor, or the shield bonus of your shield.

Rules of the Game has covered this nicely.

The rules in this case aren't ambiguous... but people often miss the subtlety of what the enhancement bonus actually affects.

-Hyp.

 

[Crothian]

I didn't realize it needed to be that pselled out, but hery if people need it.....

 

[Hypersmurf]

I didn't realize it needed to be that pselled out, but hery if people need it.....

You just misspelled "spelled"

I don't think we see quite so many here, but there tend to be a lot of "Does this stack?" questions on the Wizards boards. I'm guessing the Sage probably receives plenty.

It's not something that's ambiguous, but sometimes people do seem to have trouble wrapping their head around it...

And so far, it looks like this will be a useful resource for people starting out. No mistakes so far. That was the problem with Gamestoppers - great idea, but too many errors.

-Hyp.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

...It's not something that's ambiguous, but sometimes people do seem to have trouble wrapping their head around it...

Perhaps ambiguous it's not, but the entire system of different types of bonuses, what stacks with what, etc. is (IMO) unnecessarily complex. If WOTC feels the need to post this information over 3 years after the rules were published, that's a pretty clear sign that the basic design is flawed.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

I never found it a problem. You just have to make sure you know exactly what type of bonuses you have, and add them up. If it's an unnamed bonus, it stacks, and if you have the same bonus more than once, you get the single highest one. Simple.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Perhaps ambiguous it's not, but the entire system of different types of bonuses, what stacks with what, etc. is (IMO) unnecessarily complex. If WOTC feels the need to post this information over 3 years after the rules were published, that's a pretty clear sign that the basic design is flawed.

I don't agree at all, actually. Once someone gets the basic concepts - which aren't that complicated - the system works just fine.

Compare it to Armor Class in 1E, where there were hardly any general rules for what could be used in combination... everything was an exception. Which worked as well, but it definitely made it more difficult to introduce new elements. If you wanted to invent something that increased Armor Class by granting the wearer insight into his opponent's next attack, you'd have to specify how it interacted with a ring or cloak of protection, with bracers of protection, with non-magical armor, with magical armor, whether it worked against traps...

In 3E you say "+2 insight bonus", and you're pretty well covered.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

I don't agree at all, actually. Once someone gets the basic concepts - which aren't that complicated - the system works just fine.

In principle, it's easy to crack someone's password too. Just try all possible combinations of numbers and letters. You're bound to get it eventually.

I think introducing typed bonuses has been a bit of a mixed bag. From a strict balance PoV they work well enough, but even then, there's so many types that imaginative people will often still beable to get final numbers that are stupid. From an application PoV, the profusion of types and complications makes for confusion, especially when you start getting into esoteric spells and items.

Consider, as an alternative, NWN's system where all bonuses stack, but you're limited to a max of +10 (excluding base and stat). It's simple, and pretty close to bulletproof. You'd have to rebalance things a bit, but as a system in itself, it seems a better solution.

 

[Crothian]

Perhaps ambiguous it's not, but the entire system of different types of bonuses, what stacks with what, etc. is (IMO) unnecessarily complex. If WOTC feels the need to post this information over 3 years after the rules were published, that's a pretty clear sign that the basic design is flawed.

One couild agrue they are just doing it 6 months after the realeas of 3.5