No Stacking Paradigm

[virgil]

I remember there being a thread that posited the idea of not having any bonus or penalty stack. You simply use the biggest one at the time, and ignore those of lesser value. The example idea would be the barbarian, once buffed (either through spells or rage), doesn't care about the bonus he would get from having surprise because it's smaller; creating the image of people who are really pumped up charging in screaming, because there wasn't an incentive not to.

Does anyone else remember this thread? I think it was about other stuff to, but that example is what stuck out for me.

[Lago PARANOIA]

That is precisely why the no stacking rule is probably the worst idea masquerading as a good idea I'be ever heard. I'd in all honesty rather play in a game with anal circumference rules than complete no-stacking rules.

I couldn't even imagine a game where getting a shiny sword makes planning, combos, and tactics completely worthless. Seriously, while bonus accumulation is a huge problem, this so-called fix is like dynamiting your kid's face off to pop a zit.

[RobbyPants]

I remember the thread a while ago, but I don't remember many specifics.

I could see the benefit of a small stacking paradigm, but Lago is right that just one bonus gets to be really annoying. I could see getting away with something like:

• Base mod from levels
• Magic/Enhancement bonus
• Circumstance/Luck bonus
• Competence/Skill bonus

And just applying those three bonuses to the base level mod, never stacking like bonuses.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Here's a thread on it.

[Ice9]

If you did have a "minimal stacking" paradigm, you definitely want circumstance/tactics bonuses to be a separate category that stacks. And you probably want class/skill to be a separate category from equipment - otherwise one of the two is going to be useless.

OTOH, I'm not sure that you need to worry about too much stacking in general, just on things that are supposed to stay on the RNG. Damage bonuses, for instance, can stack up pretty high with no problems.

[Josh_Kablack]

You could have a paradigm where

• "Character Sheet" notations did not stack with other "Character Sheet" notations, and "Battlemat" features did not stack with other "Battlemat" features. In this setup, a character who had chugged a potion of Obstinate Strength and was wielding a Sword of Plusness would only get the better of the bonuses those items provided. When they attacked an enemy whom they had both Flanking and Higher Ground bonuses against, they would only get the better of those bonuses. However, Their Sword of Plusness and Flanking Bonuses would stack together for that attack
• Nothing that influenced the central RNG stacked, and stackable effects only influence other aspects of the game. In D&D terms, you would only get the best mod to the d20 roll, (attacks, saves, AC, skill checks) but you could totally stack up damage adds, DR, temp HP, movement speeds, etc.

Either of these could go a long way towards simplifying the game and reducing the amount of auto-win / auto-lose die rolling while at least potentially allowing enough tactical flexibility and strategic character planning to keep Lago away from FATAL.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Hey, you know what the huge rage going around 4E character classes and powers right now is? Putting in penalties. As much of a stink people raised about Righteous Brand, Ardents and Psions can do things with their At-Wills at a relatively low level that completely eclipse what RB could ever do. People get outraged and upset about someone being able to provide the party a +6 damage bonus for an At-Will, but when a Runepriest is able to do the same with a vulnerability penalty, it's all silent.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is no easy 'implement and forget about it' solution to bonus accumulation. If you limit the types of bonuses people will just put in new ones. If you declare that bonuses are bad people will just put in horizontal power creep (like a side order of extra attack or an extra encounter power or whatever the fuck), status effects, penalties, automatic fixed damage, forced die outputs like declaring you in fact rolled a 19, or rerolls. All of which I have seen in 4th Edition after they caught holy hell for bonus accumulation after Martial Power and Adventurer's Vault. Did they manage to reign in the bonuses under control? To an extent; the best generic magical item they've published so far was a Bloodclaw/Reckless Weapon and none of the new weapons come close in raw cynical damage output.

Did any of that shit reduce power creep? Hell fucking no. Min-maxers just diversified their portfolio. So instead of Rangers doing +50 damage on a hit by epic, they now push + prone + slow + daze and do +40 damage on a hit. Instead of clerics giving people a +6 bonus to attack rolls for a round, Ardents slap on a -6 penalty to all enemy defenses. Instead of hammer warlocks barely keeping up with maul fighters in damage, they can lay teleportation and blind to fields of enemies on top of whatever else their power did. Instead of warlords handing out a +6 power bonus to attack against an enemy for the rest of the encounter, they instead generate a cocktail of 8 extra attacks in the span of two rounds. Instead of wizards repeatedly blasting the field with ridonkulus damage effects, they casually lay on status effects way worse than the days in which people peed their pants over Stinking Cloud and Fire Orb.

Gee, thanks bitches.

If you don't want player power accumulation to get out of control then you have to carefully monitor them. Because power creep is a really easy way to sell books and as 4E D&D has showed us game designers are really imaginative at finding ways to completely wreck game balance. There is no other way.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Now, I'm not arguing for alternatives to bonus accumulation. If 4E D&D was able to go back in time and reprint all of the classes they originally had that reflected new classes or new paradigms (so wizard, ranger/barbarian kludge, fighter, ardent, warden, battlemind, WIS-cleric, runepriest, monk, rogue as a relabeled assassin, druid/sentinel kludge, artificer plundering seeker, warlock as a relabeled hexblade, an avenger/paladin/cavalier/executioner kludge) with some minor fixes we would've gotten tired of it a lot sooner. I mean the game still has some major classes but at least they'd feel a lot different from each other at a sniff check.

The point is that the first 4E D&D PHB and the first year and a half of the game in fact was all about the bonus accumulation. They sharply veered away from this paradigm but the game has still steadily gotten more unbalanced.

[Psychic Robot]

better idea: stop handing out bonuses like candy and you won't have to worry about them stacking

[RobbyPants]

The point I'm trying to make is that there is no easy 'implement and forget about it' solution to bonus accumulation. If you limit the types of bonuses people will just put in new ones. If you declare that bonuses are bad people will just put in horizontal power creep (like a side order of extra attack or an extra encounter power or whatever the fuck), status effects, penalties, automatic fixed damage, forced die outputs like declaring you in fact rolled a 19, or rerolls. All of which I have seen in 4th Edition after they caught holy hell for bonus accumulation after Martial Power and Adventurer's Vault. Did they manage to reign in the bonuses under control? To an extent; the best generic magical item they've published so far was a Bloodclaw/Reckless Weapon and none of the new weapons come close in raw cynical damage output.

So what's the argument here? Even if you design a good RPG, other designers can wreck it with bad design later? I think that's sort of tautologically true.

[shadzar]

I remember the thread a while ago, but I don't remember many specifics.

I could see the benefit of a small stacking paradigm, but Lago is right that just one bonus gets to be really annoying. I could see getting away with something like:

• Base mod from levels
• Magic/Enhancement bonus
• Circumstance/Luck bonus
• Competence/Skill bonus

And just applying those three bonuses to the base level mod, never stacking like bonuses.

i dont like this entirely. i think if it is natural to a character it should be figured in and not worry about stacking or such. armored v unaromored AC. it is what it is.

likewise there is a good example of bonuses... you have natural and magical...pick the best of each to use.

this is where the AC numbers come from for different types anyway.

base 10 AC.
armor A is an animal skin and has natural armor of AC 9.
armor A then gives +1 AC bonus


you are picking the best number to use already in that case...just there are different ways to express how that happens.

then if the armor is magical, you are using it for the physical armor so would be natural. if some OTHER item gave magical AC..then you get that added to it. like a necklace and a ring. these only the best one contributes since its stronger magic overrides the weaker.

its like two rings of AC... you only get the bonus once, because the magic of each is of equal strength, and the magic is NOT cumulative.

skill should be factored in with the base as you call it that would give the AC 10.

if yo go to far beyond that you are repeating 3rd editions Christmas tree, because you can have so many different types of bonuses that the list would grow out of control again. eTools let MANY things stack.

like PR said (did i just type that?) dont have so many damn bonuses to begin with.

it always dumbfounds me the level of metagaming that has always gone on around characters because of bonuses. if you place yourself int he world, a character would not really know that this +1 is really doing much for them, so wouldnt collect so many trinkets and baubbles. inside the game world there isnt a group of analysts figuring up and set of numbers to say what is better. even weapons being discussed in-game as +x disgust me because why would the character even know this?

play as a character in the world, and there will be less need to worry about the stacking, because there will be less junk to stack to begin with.

[Lago PARANOIA]

The point I'm trying to make is that there is no easy 'implement and forget about it' solution to bonus accumulation. If you limit the types of bonuses people will just put in new ones. If you declare that bonuses are bad people will just put in horizontal power creep (like a side order of extra attack or an extra encounter power or whatever the fuck), status effects, penalties, automatic fixed damage, forced die outputs like declaring you in fact rolled a 19, or rerolls. All of which I have seen in 4th Edition after they caught holy hell for bonus accumulation after Martial Power and Adventurer's Vault. Did they manage to reign in the bonuses under control? To an extent; the best generic magical item they've published so far was a Bloodclaw/Reckless Weapon and none of the new weapons come close in raw cynical damage output.

So what's the argument here? Even if you design a good RPG, other designers can wreck it with bad design later? I think that's sort of tautologically true.

The point is that bonus accumulation, whether it is from an additive, rerolls, penalties, horizontal power creep, or whatever is such a problem that fixing the gestalt (which needs to be done anyway) would fix the original problem. In fact cynical bonuses should, all things being equal, be the go to method for power creep. It's much easier to determine the overpoweredness of a Bloodclaw+Reckless Pit Fighter Ranger than a Warlock laying down teleport+blind on every encounter power.