What if bonuses never stacked?

[Tony Vargas]

And a leader's bonuses would just have to function with that in mind. That's well onto the 5E path, though. I think that horse has sailed on this edition without a lot of hacking.

The only quick-and-dirty solution that I can think of would be not to eliminate stacking, but just unnamed bonuses. If a feat gives an unnamed bonus, it's a feat bonus. Power, power bonus. Item, items bonus. Race, racial bonus. Class feature, class bonus. No exceptions.

 

[Mengu]

Without bonus stacking, the system would I think boil down to finding the "thing" that gives the biggest bonus, and everything else would become obsolete.

You think there are too many bonuses in the system, I think there aren't enough native bonuses in the system. I'm looking at a level 25 bard doing something like 2d8+18 damage with his powers. At that rate, he will defeat an equal level monster one on one, in about 14 rounds, compared to the level 1 bard who can take out such a monster with a 1d8+4 attack in about 6 rounds.

I certainly would prefer to see a system, where fishing for more bonuses wasn't a requirement to functional characters. But that requires slightly better planning out of the gate. I could get on board with fewer bonuses, if the system allowed for a baked in half level damage bonus or the like.

 

[Dice4Hire]

The only quick-and-dirty solution that I can think of would be not to eliminate stacking, but just unnamed bonuses. If a feat gives an unnamed bonus, it's a feat bonus. Power, power bonus. Item, items bonus. Race, racial bonus. Class feature, class bonus. No exceptions.

I agree with this, but do not think it will work well with 4E. It is too late. But I would like to see D&D get off the bonus treadmill at some point. It is one thing I do not like about D&D and never really have.

 

[keterys]

You think there are too many bonuses in the system, I think there aren't enough native bonuses in the system. I'm looking at a level 25 bard doing something like 2d8+18 damage with his powers. At that rate, he will defeat an equal level monster one on one, in about 14 rounds, compared to the level 1 bard who can take out such a monster with a 1d8+4 attack in about 6 rounds.

That sounds like my bard!

That said, when I do hit for my ~2d8+18, I do give everyone else in the party +7 to damage for a round. I also then AP to give someone else a standard action attack, getting the AP back if they hit (I try to make sure they attack at least two times, preferably three times as part of that attack). Oh, and I give rerolls a lot if I ever get to play more at 24th level.

So, I mean, _my_ personal damage is pretty lackluster, but boy do I hand out damage in actual effect. I wouldn't mind narrowing it in on both sides, though, such that I do more damage and give out lesser bonuses (or they stacked less, to go with this particular thread)

 

[Mirtek]

The thing is most people want to take options that make their characters better at their role.

Sure, you can deflate all options by making them not stacking, but then you also deflated the fun about taking this options for most people.

If a striker can only take one damage feat and one accuracy feat and then is only left with "high speed reading" feat or "tie your shoelace one-handed" feat it stops being exciting for most people by the point they have taken the first two feats.

Sure, you could make all feats more situational by splitting them into "+1 to hit on days starting with M", "+1 to hit on feats starting with T", ..., but then people will simply process through this list.

 

[keterys]

Or people will take a variety of feats to get different kinds of bonuses - so the strker might have his attack feat, damage feat, gaining CA feat, rolling init feat, maneuvering feat, each defense feat, hit points feat, not dying feat, making a few different kinds of skills feats, skill power feat, bonus with certain at-will feat, etc.

That and you can still have a +1 feat bonus to damage all the time feat... alongside a +2 feat bonus to charge damage feat.

 

[Mirtek]

That and you can still have a +1 feat bonus to damage all the time feat... alongside a +2 feat bonus to charge damage feat.

This is not interesting, that is just mechanically working off a list of feats from the most to the least advantage, aka just the same people are doing know except with a lot of more annoying little things to remember all the times (Ok, since it Tuesday, full moon and I am facing a prime number of enemies I have +7 at the moment, too bad it's not new moon and a uneven number of enemies that were born in May, because than it would be +10)

Also then the same people complaining now would be complaining that everyone takes all the defense feats, the not dying feat, ....

Also isn't that actually what we have today anyway? The rogues take their light blade expertise general feat and their nimble blade situational feat and ...

 

[keterys]

A thief might have three feats for accuracy (expertise, nimble blade, deft blade) and three feats for damage (backstabber, weapon focus, expertise). Possibly a couple for initiative too (danger sense, improved or superior initiative). And, of course, items for the same (eagle eye goggles or horned helm, iron armbands of power, subtle or footpad or radiant weapons, battle harness or quicksilver or timeless, etc).

No particular need for that much overlap in the design space - especially not with so few feats to choose amongst and so few item slots.

 

[Mirtek]

A thief might have three feats for accuracy (expertise, nimble blade, deft blade)

And how is this different from your suggestion of taking the +1 feat bonus all time and the +2 feat bonus while charging?

 

[Thraug]

Removing stacking in 4e would "break" the math, so I wouldn't do it. No stacking is how it SHOULD have been designed though. Much simpler during gametime, with nothing lost, and that's always a good thing.