The death of bonus stacking?

[BryonD]

Gak. Forgot about those feats. (Can we tell that Ari is tired? ) All right, AC and attack rolls could be exceptions.

It's things like stat bonuses where I'd mostly like to see bonus stacking go the hell away.

It still needs to make sense though.

I mean, I can see the OotS now:

Roy: "You made me 18 feet tall and I didn't get any stronger???!!??"
V: "Sorry, but it turns out your Belt of Strength just makes the math to hard for my spell to figure out."

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Our solution to the stacking problems is the rather simple bonus strip.

Each character has a sheet of paper with most bonus-able stats and their permanent bonuses written in a row. For each dynamic bonus source, mostly spells and bardic music, we have antoher strip of paper laid out in the ame way. The bonus types a color-coded.

when a spell is cast of the bard starts yowling, each affected PC puts the corresponding bonus strip on his sheet. To calculate the current bonus for a specific stat, you just scan this stat's column on the sheet. This takes one or two seconds, and the "danger" of illegal stacking is very low.

On the other hand we could live very well with a simpler model.

I would propose to distinguish between (semi-) permanent bonuses and dynamic ones. Permanent bonuses should be printed on the character sheet. The dynamic bonuses could be restricted to one bonus only.

At the same time reduce the possible sources of bonuses. Applying bonuses should not be an optimizer's dream, but an intuitive task. For a dynamic +1 bonus it shouldn't matter whether it is from a spell, a psionic power, a potion or whatever. Just take care that dynamic bonuses are not such a powerful advantage and most of these problems are removed from the game.

---
Huldvoll

Jan van Leyden

 

[delericho]

In order to make this work you would need to eliminate the ability buffing spells, and replace them with spells that had a primary effect directly (e.g. "Bulls Strength gives +2 to hit and damage", rather than "Bulls Strength gives +4 to Strength (and calculate all the things that changes).

The problem with that is that it then denies the option to cast the spell on Bob the Fighter so he can bend that metal bar, or to help him jump that chasm, swim against the current, or climb those cliffs. And, of course, if he happens to have to carry Bill the pony any distance (don't ask), well, now he can't do that either.

"Bull's Strength gives +4 to Strength" really is the elegant solution to describing what a spell of that name really should do.

 

[JDJblatherings]

I see no problem with Bonus stacking of named bonuses. one of each works fine. The only real problem is book keeping. hmmm... maybe some sort of computer use is how WOTC sees folks handling all the book keeping?

Now if we want to keep the number scores down maybe something like best 3 or 5 bonuses of any type(s). Posibly effect all this with specific insta-dispels like "Dispel Profane" which gets rid of ANY profane bonus in play in the area of effect. Or wards which block a bonus type.

 

[JDJblatherings]

The problem with that is that it then denies the option to cast the spell on Bob the Fighter so he can bend that metal bar, or to help him jump that chasm, swim against the current, or climb those cliffs. And, of course, if he happens to have to carry Bill the pony any distance (don't ask), well, now he can't do that either.

"Bull's Strength gives +4 to Strength" really is the elegant solution to describing what a spell of that name really should do.

How about just the ability bonus being impacted and not the actual score? +1 STR bonus, meaning +1 to any strength related roll but the scores remains unchanged for any short term buff.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Gak. Forgot about those feats. (Can we tell that Ari is tired? ) All right, AC and attack rolls could be exceptions.

It's things like stat bonuses where I'd mostly like to see bonus stacking go the hell away.

I think they could limit it to, say, best 3 available and it work out ok.

 

[The_Gneech]

The problem with that is that it then denies the option to cast the spell on Bob the Fighter so he can bend that metal bar, or to help him jump that chasm, swim against the current, or climb those cliffs. And, of course, if he happens to have to carry Bill the pony any distance (don't ask), well, now he can't do that either.

"Bull's Strength gives +4 to Strength" really is the elegant solution to describing what a spell of that name really should do.

How about "Bull's Strength gives +2 to melee attacks, melee or thrown weapon damage rolls, Str checks, and Str-based skill checks."

In practice, that's really the important parts ... but there are also little unexpected ramifications to "+4 Str", such as possibly allowing you to qualify for feats that you wouldn't otherwise be able to, or that kind of thing, and it's the little unexpected ramifications that always drive me nuts.

Ditto with ability damage -- "Hold on, I'm not allowed to use Expertise now because that mind blast took my Int below 13." Pfui! Too many interconnected things to break.

-The Gneech

 

[delericho]

In practice, that's really the important parts ... but there are also little unexpected ramifications to "+4 Str", such as possibly allowing you to qualify for feats that you wouldn't otherwise be able to, or that kind of thing, and it's the little unexpected ramifications that always drive me nuts.

Ditto with ability damage -- "Hold on, I'm not allowed to use Expertise now because that mind blast took my Int below 13." Pfui! Too many interconnected things to break.

It strikes me that that is better fixed by inserting a ruling that to qualify for a feat you must possess the prerequisites (in the same way that a Headband of Intellect doesn't give additional skill points), but that once you have a feat then you never lose it.

The problem with spelling out all the changes explicitly is that there may well be some unexpected ramification that really should be covered by the spell that has been missed. Sure, the DM can then house rule that, but how to sort out the changes that aren't made because the designers forgot from the ones that weren't made because they weren't supposed to be covered?

It strikes me that it's just better to apply the bonus to the stat directly, and let the rest work from there. However, I would also keep the number of things that affect stats to a minimum, and especially temporary changes.

 

[reanjr]

I'm good with the 3e concept, just not its implementation. IMO, there should be the following bonuses:

Racial
Inherent (from ability scores only)
Situation
Magic

 

[lukelightning]

I dislike natural armor. Sure, a bear is tough, and dire armadillo is really tough, but this leads to crazy situations where monsters have wicked high ACs because of stacking. Troglodytes in plate armor, anyone?

I don't think that slapping a suit of leather armor onto an iron golem should make it harder to hurt.

And I hate all the redundant bonuses. What is the difference between a sacred bonus and a holy bonus? Or insight vs. competence?