JoeGKushner
Adventurer
My wish list of old has death of bonus stacking and ability scores be equal to the bonus from long ago.
Hope someone is reading.
Hope someone is reading.
The death of bonus stacking?
- Thread starter MerricB
- Start date
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
I'd like to ditch bonus stacking for most elements. You count the highest bonus that affects a given mechanic (not counting ability scores), and that's it -- say to a max of +5 or +6.
So you can improve AC from magic armor, or a spell, but not both.
You can have a spell increase strength, or an item increase strength, but not both.
You can get a to hit bonus from a feat, or a magic weapon, or a spell -- but only the highest bonus counts.
etc.
If that's too draconican, we could keep stacking, but only if there are no exceptions -- no more "like bonuses do not stack, except for dodge, unnamed, synergy ...". Delete the exception categories; every bonus is named and there are a finite number of bonus categories that are fixed in the first DMG.
So you can improve AC from magic armor, or a spell, but not both.
You can have a spell increase strength, or an item increase strength, but not both.
You can get a to hit bonus from a feat, or a magic weapon, or a spell -- but only the highest bonus counts.
etc.
If that's too draconican, we could keep stacking, but only if there are no exceptions -- no more "like bonuses do not stack, except for dodge, unnamed, synergy ...". Delete the exception categories; every bonus is named and there are a finite number of bonus categories that are fixed in the first DMG.
Herremann the Wise
First Post
Hello Everyone,
Just a couple of points:
a) I think the named bonus system is rather elegant if kept within moderation. Perhaps the real problem is that there are too many different buffs around and too many bonus types?
b) Buffs to attribute scores cause a lot of headaches. One con adjustment affects many different things. Mechanically, this is inelegant. Perhaps buffs would be better being more specific (in the form of just temporary hp, or just a bonus to fort saves etc.). Keeping one buff to affecting one stat/feature seems important.
c) Defensively, I have always thought there has been a significant gap in regards to AC. Take a melee combatant (A) who is fighting another melee combatant (B). (B) is difficult for (A) to hit because he's holding a sword which he can 1) fend off blows and 2) threaten (A) with if (A) makes a mistake. What happens then if (B) is bereft of a weapon? Funnily enough as the current rules stand, nothing (except a lack of threatening squares from (B)).
There are two issues at play here. Firstly is the defence that having a weapon provides and secondly, what if (B) was a skilled combatant and more able to avoid blows?
The first can be sorted by giving the defender a melee AC bonus. I think this is very important in a game which should be just as much about skill as it is magic. It also makes a lot of sense (although it does mean that there is a further AC box to fill in). However, what happens if a ranged combatant has a shot at (B)? Easy, (B) does not get their melee AC bonus versus that attack. This makes ranged weapons more effective (which is something the current rules also seems to nullify).
The second issue can be done by having one's reflex save be introduced into one's touch AC (Something I think a lot of people already houserule).
I suppose what I would like to see in all of this is a greater emphasis on a character's skill and ability and a reduced impact of what magic they can throw around.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
Just a couple of points:
a) I think the named bonus system is rather elegant if kept within moderation. Perhaps the real problem is that there are too many different buffs around and too many bonus types?
b) Buffs to attribute scores cause a lot of headaches. One con adjustment affects many different things. Mechanically, this is inelegant. Perhaps buffs would be better being more specific (in the form of just temporary hp, or just a bonus to fort saves etc.). Keeping one buff to affecting one stat/feature seems important.
c) Defensively, I have always thought there has been a significant gap in regards to AC. Take a melee combatant (A) who is fighting another melee combatant (B). (B) is difficult for (A) to hit because he's holding a sword which he can 1) fend off blows and 2) threaten (A) with if (A) makes a mistake. What happens then if (B) is bereft of a weapon? Funnily enough as the current rules stand, nothing (except a lack of threatening squares from (B)).
There are two issues at play here. Firstly is the defence that having a weapon provides and secondly, what if (B) was a skilled combatant and more able to avoid blows?
The first can be sorted by giving the defender a melee AC bonus. I think this is very important in a game which should be just as much about skill as it is magic. It also makes a lot of sense (although it does mean that there is a further AC box to fill in). However, what happens if a ranged combatant has a shot at (B)? Easy, (B) does not get their melee AC bonus versus that attack. This makes ranged weapons more effective (which is something the current rules also seems to nullify).
The second issue can be done by having one's reflex save be introduced into one's touch AC (Something I think a lot of people already houserule).
I suppose what I would like to see in all of this is a greater emphasis on a character's skill and ability and a reduced impact of what magic they can throw around.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
Jackelope King
First Post
Honestly, I think the best answer takes ideas from both extremes.
Named bonuses would only really coming from gear (and considering that it sounds like the Big 6 are going away, this won't be nearly as extreme as it was in 3.X, with the plethora of options Merric outlined above). So if armor stays as providing defense, you'll have Dex providing a dodge bonus, armor providing an armor bonus, etc.
Then "buffs" don't stack: the biggest one gives you the full bonus and everything else just adds a +1 to it.
Named bonuses would only really coming from gear (and considering that it sounds like the Big 6 are going away, this won't be nearly as extreme as it was in 3.X, with the plethora of options Merric outlined above). So if armor stays as providing defense, you'll have Dex providing a dodge bonus, armor providing an armor bonus, etc.
Then "buffs" don't stack: the biggest one gives you the full bonus and everything else just adds a +1 to it.
Glyfair
Explorer
Patryn of Elvenshae said:
Or, keep the current system but have a very limited number of bonus types. What do we have now? Off the top of my head I can think of morale, deflection, armor, shield, circumstance, dodge, insight, enhancement, luck, inherent, and unnamed. I'm sure I missed some.
Branduil
Hero
Yes, I don't think the problem is the rule itself, it's that there are too many types, and it's all a band-aid on the broken AC leveling issue. It should be something like Level bonus+dex bonus+armor bonus+shield bonus+dodge bonus+misc bonus. Natural armor should count as armor, it shouldn't stack. The various other circumstantial bonuses shouldn't stack.
Glyfair said:
... sacred, profane, natural armour, synergy, ...
I agree with your point. The named bonuses system is elegant in concept, but flawed in practice because of complexity, for example:
(a) there are too many bonuses from too many sources to remember and apply;
(b) the "no stacking" rule has not been applied universally (dodge and synergy bonuses, I'm looking at you).
I'd like to see a bonus system which laid out at most only three rules for applying bonuses, and adhered to those rules without exception.
I'd like to see a bonus system which limited bonuses to at most three kinds of bonuses for very temporary effects (e.g. from 1-combat-duration spells, or per-combat abilities), and at most three kinds of bonuses for long-term effects (e.g. from continuously-active magic items), and no temporary bonuses can be long-term bonuses and vice-versa.
Cheers, Al'Kelhar
One thing to think about is what *range* you want the final bonus to end up in at each level.
If an Orc has a +5 attack bonus, and you still want it to be a credible threat at 7th level, then obviously you don't want to give 7th level PCs too high an AC! The gap between power level is important.
Cheers!
If an Orc has a +5 attack bonus, and you still want it to be a credible threat at 7th level, then obviously you don't want to give 7th level PCs too high an AC! The gap between power level is important.
Cheers!
Similar Threads
