The death of bonus stacking?

[MerricB]

If there's one thing that we eagerly embraced with 3e, but has probably caused more problems than any other feature of 3e, it's this: bonus stacking.

Sure, it *looks* fine on the surface. However, by the time you reach 13th level or so, the number of bonuses that are applying to combat values are pushing things completely out of whack, and are definitely causing the "Christmas tree" effect.

Consider AC:
...armour - so get a suit of armour or bracers of armour or mage armour spell.
...enhancement (to armour) - an which you put on your suit of armour
...shield - which is made worse by that stupid Animated Shield.
...enhancement (to shield)
...dodge
...natural armour - a little tougher to get, but look out, because there's...
...enhancement (to natural armour) - so everyone has the amulet of natural armour
...deflection - let's add a ring of protection while where at it.
...dexterity - we add the Manuals and/or Gloves to make it better.
...anything else the designers can think up. Like "insight", "profane", etc.

For a fighter, you've generally got *five* magic items that can be enhanced to make your AC better. So, your magical bonus just from your items ranges somewhere from +0 to +23, before adding any spell effects.

Is it any wonder that a CR 4 creature may be a threat for a party of 4th level characters, and a speedbump for a party of level 6 characters, and not even a problem for a party of level 7 characters?

If a level 4 creature is meant to be a threat up until level 9 or 10, then I guess that this insanity of bonus stacking is going to go away - either by reducing the types of bonuses, or just say there is "natural" and "magical" and that's it...

Oh, and I wonder how important ability scores will be?

Cheers!

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I think the named boni were an overeaction to 2e.

In 2e, bonuses were rarely named and (IIRC) usually stacked, but maybe it was the other way around. In any event, it was so confusing that they fixed that situation. Unfortunately, they didn't keep things under control.

Part of the problem with your fighter AC analysis is that fighters don't naturally gain AC, despite knowing how to fight. No one complains about their natural attack bonus progression.

 

[MerricB]

Part of the problem with your fighter AC analysis is that fighters don't naturally gain AC, despite knowing how to fight. No one complains about their natural attack bonus progression.

Well, they do. It's just not the fighter they complain about. It's the rogue they complain about, because it's too weak compared to the fighter...

Consider attack bonus:
...base attack
...strength bonus (enhancement bonus to improve strength)
...enhancement bonus of weapon
...feats (Weapon Focus, Improved Weapon Focus, Weapon Mastery)
...spells (often morale, occasionally other)

It isn't so big a Christmas-Tree effect, but it can vary quite a bit regardless.

Cheers!

 

[Grog]

And the other problem with stacking bonuses is that it leads to situations where focused characters become so much better at what they do than non-focused characters that it really throws balance off, because the more bonuses you have available, the bigger the difference between the character who improves all those bonuses and the one who doesn't improve any (or does so at a slower rate). So while an AC-focused character at 7th level (before you can apply too many stacking bonuses) might have an AC 5 points or so better than a non-focused character (not counting CE and fighting defensively and such), which isn't unreasonable, at 20th level you could easily end up with a situation where foes can only hit the AC-focused character on a natural 20, but can only miss the non-focused character on a natural 1. It's too big a difference, and it makes it extremely difficult to design challenging encounters.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Having a Base Defense Bonus for each class and removing a lot of bonus types would be my first choice. It's always bugged me that the only difference in self defense between a 1st level fighter and a 20th level fighter are things we call HIT points.

 

[Jarrod]

There are two things I don't like.

1) Stacking rules. Overly complicated for my friends. "Okay, I'm getting a +3 bonus from that spell... except wait, I already had a +2 foo bonus, so I only actually get a +1..." I don't like anything that requires detailed knowledge of where every bonus is coming from - that is good for computers, bad for fast play. On the other hand, limitless stacking is a bigger problem, so I can deal.

2) The number of categories. Morale bonus, luck bonus, enhancement bonus, blah bonus, foo bonus... cut 'em down. Have a "magic bonus" that all spells, equipment, whatever stacks as. Make the numbers increase at higher levels if you have to - bless is +1 at 1st, prayer is +2 at 3rd, big prayer is +4 at 7th. But no more sacred+enhancement+luck+morale.

 

[Samnell]

I adore the bonus stacking rules and hope they remain utterly untouched. The removal of named penalties in 3.5 was a step backwards.

 

[Nikosandros]

Yes, originally the rules looked really good, because finally there were clear rules on how bless, prayer and a bard singing where interacting with each other.

However at the end, they are quite a bookkeeping nightmare. Personally, I'll be glad if they get rid of it and, for example, place a hard limit of one bonus to AC.

 

[Branduil]

AC is really screwed up in 3.x. You don't get any bonus at all for leveling, unlike basically every other important class aspect. So you have to load up with magic items to even get it into a semi-decent range. Hopefully 4e lessens this and gives you a bonus based on level like Saga.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I really, really like the stacking bonus rules from 3.XE.

The way I see it, there are two possibilities if you want to get away from this paradigm:

1. Everything stacks with everything. This is obviously problematical for many reasons.

2. Nothing stacks with anything.

The problems with #2 are harder to see, but I believe that they're still there. Firstly, it makes the lower-level versions of numerical bonus spells useless.

Second, it really ups the temptation for designers to put in just one spell that stacks with something else. In 3.XE, that's easy to do: make it an unnamed bonus. Everyone knows how this works. In 4E, that would usher in the problems of 2E where certain spells stacked with other certain spells, but not these other spells, etc.

No, I think the 3.XE system of named bonuses is just about right.