The end of penalties of the same type?

[Li Shenron]

I noticed this from another thread:

Question: When a character receives a penalty of a type for which he also has a bonus, do both affect the ability jointly or does the larger number take hold, as the same type of modifier can't affect an ability twice?
Answer: First, in 3.5 penalties no longer have names -- they're just penalties, and they all stack. In 3.0 penalties had names, but they stacked with bonuses of the same name (in spite of what you might have read in earlier printings of the Player’s Handbook).

I don't have the 3.5 books yet and didn't notice this from the SRD. Personally, I think I don't understand at all why this was changed. Any idea?

 

[Caliban]

I noticed this from another thread:



I don't have the 3.5 books yet and didn't notice this from the SRD. Personally, I think I don't understand at all why this was changed. Any idea?

The sage is accurate, if you look up penalties in the glossary of the PHB it says they dont' usually have a type and always stack.

Not sure why they changed it. Probably to make it easier run.

 

[Selganor]

It might also be so that somebody who had a +4 morale bonus would no longer be immune to effects that gave him a morale penalty (up to -3) as only the larger number would count.

In 3.5 (with penalties being the always stackable unnamed) penalties would ALWAYS apply...

 

[paranoid]

Does that mean that multiple castings of Ray of Enfeeblement stack? OMG...

-p.

 

[Gez]

I always thought that the largest number counted for each sides of 0. Thus, if you had -4 enhancement penalty and +2 enhancement bonus, you arrived at a total of -2.
But if you had enhancement penalties at -4, -2, -2, -1; and enhancement bonuses at +2, +2, +1; then the total would be -2 rather than -4.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Does that mean that multiple castings of Ray of Enfeeblement stack? OMG...

No.

Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves.

-----

So RoE will stack with another spell that provides a penalty to Str, but not with RoE.

-Hyp.

 

[Li Shenron]

I always thought that the largest number counted for each sides of 0. Thus, if you had -4 enhancement penalty and +2 enhancement bonus, you arrived at a total of -2.
But if you had enhancement penalties at -4, -2, -2, -1; and enhancement bonuses at +2, +2, +1; then the total would be -2 rather than -4.

I don't know if this was the correct way, but we also played the same. In fact, we always thought that bonuses of the same type overlap, penalties of the same type overlap, but penalties don't "overlap" with bonuses, which just makes no sense (otherwise? +1 and -200 would overlap to +1 because it's higher? but that would mean also that -1 is higher than -200).

On the other hand, Hyp's note is right that still if the source of the (unnamed) penalty/bonus is the same, it doesn't stack with itself (if they are rolled randomly and the result is different, the larger number applies).

 

[Lamoni]

I always thought that the largest number counted for each sides of 0. Thus, if you had -4 enhancement penalty and +2 enhancement bonus, you arrived at a total of -2.
But if you had enhancement penalties at -4, -2, -2, -1; and enhancement bonuses at +2, +2, +1; then the total would be -2 rather than -4.

Actually, if I understand it correctly, the total would be -4 as long as the enhancements were of different types and the penalties were from different sources.

Enhancements only stack if they are not of the same type. If they are of the same type, you take the largest one.

Penalties always stack unless they are from the same spell or effect.

The change was made because you always stacked things with each other in 3.0, while in 3.5 you generally don't stack things that are of the same type. While they could have still just added "penalties always stack with each other," they decided to make it less confusing by removing the type from penalties. Otherwise I am sure we would have heard many more questions on the issue.

 

[dcollins]

The rule under 3.0 would be that the biggest bonus applies, and the biggest penalty applies.

If more than one modifier of a type is present, only the best bonus or worst penalty in that grouping applies. (3.0 PHB p. 279, Glossary, "Modifier").

It's also noted on 3.0 PHB p. 152 under "Bonus Types".