Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Character Builds & Optimization
The AC on a Budget challenge
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: 6236602" data-attributes="member: 22424"><p>No, it's not clear. The only quote from the PHB (also in the SRD) that is relevant is "Multiple enhancement bonuses on the same object (in the case of armour or weapons), creature (in the case of natural armour), or ability score do not stack."</p><p></p><p>This does indeed imply that an enhancement bonus to the mithral shirt and an enhancement bonus to dastana are separate and should stack.</p><p></p><p>However, as I noted up-thread, the Dastana was updated to 3.5e in Dragon #318, in which James Wyatt (the designer who introduced them to the game) explicitly states that they don't stack (see the relevant post above, which quotes the source directly).</p><p></p><p>So...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's how James Wyatt, in Dragon 318, claims it works.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yep, that's how Cyclone_Joker has been maintaining it should work. And it is indeed the logical reading.</p><p></p><p>The problem is that it's an unbalanced combination: it renders the mithral shirt + dastana + chahar-aina far and away the best combination of armour.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>My honest opinion is, frankly, that James Wyatt screwed up when he introduced Chahar-aina and Dastana to the game. His intention was to add two interesting options that would each add a minor bonus to AC. He just didn't foresee the possibility of enhancing all three together to stack for a +15 bonus.</p><p></p><p>So, having later been presented with this 'hack', he then proceeded to patch it in the worst possible way - by issuing an 'update' rather than official errata, and doing so in Dragon rather than on the WotC website, meaning it had limited exposure, a limited lifespan (since it's now OOP and not legally available online), and of questionable* validity.</p><p></p><p>* Though Paizo always maintained that their license meant everything they published was 100% official. It was <em>us</em> who decided that we would exclude their material due to significant balance issues. It would be ironic, then, if this also led to the exclusion of a correction to a clear balance issue!</p><p></p><p>But I'll note this:</p><p></p><p>- The only place where this issue appears in the printed rules is in regards to the Dastana and Chahar-aina. In all other cases, there's no problem, since you can't wear two suits of armour together, and armour and shields are separate bonus types that stack together.</p><p></p><p>- It is very clear from the relevant designer's own words that the intention was that these were <em>not</em> meant to be enhanced separately and stacked together (Dragon #318 - and note that both the update and Oriental Adventures were penned by James Wyatt).</p><p></p><p>- Allowing them to stack is problematic, because it renders the mithral shirt + dastana + chahar-aina clearly the best type of armour, breaking the "is this so good everyone will want one?" part of the balance equation. (And note, even, that since such items are all masterwork or mithral, they don't apply any armour check penalty either, so even the "you must have <em>this</em> armour proficiency to use without penalty" is a non-restriction - even if you don't, you suffer a 'penalty' of -0!)</p><p></p><p>Also - even if you don't accept the logic that "enhancement bonuses don't stack", if you <em>do</em> accept the validity of the update from Dragon then that takes care of the problem - since that <em>does</em> close the loophole with regard to the two items in question. And since the convention is that you should always use the latest sources (that is, you shouldn't use the 3.0e version of an item if a 3.5e equivalent exists) then that really does suggest that the update should be admitted.</p><p></p><p>In all honesty, though, if I were including these items in my game, I'd make <em>very</em> sure to add them to my "house rules" document to make absolutely clear how they work - and there, instead of giving a special 'stacking armour bonus' exception, I'd have them just increase the base armour bonus by 1 and explicitly state that they couldn't be further enhanced. But that, of course, is purely in the realm of house rules.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="delericho, post: 6236602, member: 22424"] No, it's not clear. The only quote from the PHB (also in the SRD) that is relevant is "Multiple enhancement bonuses on the same object (in the case of armour or weapons), creature (in the case of natural armour), or ability score do not stack." This does indeed imply that an enhancement bonus to the mithral shirt and an enhancement bonus to dastana are separate and should stack. However, as I noted up-thread, the Dastana was updated to 3.5e in Dragon #318, in which James Wyatt (the designer who introduced them to the game) explicitly states that they don't stack (see the relevant post above, which quotes the source directly). So... That's how James Wyatt, in Dragon 318, claims it works. Yep, that's how Cyclone_Joker has been maintaining it should work. And it is indeed the logical reading. The problem is that it's an unbalanced combination: it renders the mithral shirt + dastana + chahar-aina far and away the best combination of armour. My honest opinion is, frankly, that James Wyatt screwed up when he introduced Chahar-aina and Dastana to the game. His intention was to add two interesting options that would each add a minor bonus to AC. He just didn't foresee the possibility of enhancing all three together to stack for a +15 bonus. So, having later been presented with this 'hack', he then proceeded to patch it in the worst possible way - by issuing an 'update' rather than official errata, and doing so in Dragon rather than on the WotC website, meaning it had limited exposure, a limited lifespan (since it's now OOP and not legally available online), and of questionable* validity. * Though Paizo always maintained that their license meant everything they published was 100% official. It was [i]us[/i] who decided that we would exclude their material due to significant balance issues. It would be ironic, then, if this also led to the exclusion of a correction to a clear balance issue! But I'll note this: - The only place where this issue appears in the printed rules is in regards to the Dastana and Chahar-aina. In all other cases, there's no problem, since you can't wear two suits of armour together, and armour and shields are separate bonus types that stack together. - It is very clear from the relevant designer's own words that the intention was that these were [i]not[/i] meant to be enhanced separately and stacked together (Dragon #318 - and note that both the update and Oriental Adventures were penned by James Wyatt). - Allowing them to stack is problematic, because it renders the mithral shirt + dastana + chahar-aina clearly the best type of armour, breaking the "is this so good everyone will want one?" part of the balance equation. (And note, even, that since such items are all masterwork or mithral, they don't apply any armour check penalty either, so even the "you must have [i]this[/i] armour proficiency to use without penalty" is a non-restriction - even if you don't, you suffer a 'penalty' of -0!) Also - even if you don't accept the logic that "enhancement bonuses don't stack", if you [I]do[/I] accept the validity of the update from Dragon then that takes care of the problem - since that [i]does[/i] close the loophole with regard to the two items in question. And since the convention is that you should always use the latest sources (that is, you shouldn't use the 3.0e version of an item if a 3.5e equivalent exists) then that really does suggest that the update should be admitted. In all honesty, though, if I were including these items in my game, I'd make [i]very[/i] sure to add them to my "house rules" document to make absolutely clear how they work - and there, instead of giving a special 'stacking armour bonus' exception, I'd have them just increase the base armour bonus by 1 and explicitly state that they couldn't be further enhanced. But that, of course, is purely in the realm of house rules. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Character Builds & Optimization
The AC on a Budget challenge
Top