AD&D 2.0 and stacking [Archive] - Wizards Community

AD&D 2.0 and stacking [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Beware of Kobold
12-28-05, 02:43 PM one of my friends hates HATES the stacking rules of 3.5 for some reason, and he always tries to skirt around them at every opportunity. I always try to explain the value of the stacking rules but he always cites old 2.0 rules where you could stack all sorts of crazy things together and insists that in 2.0 someone could wear gauntlets of ogre power (+2 str) and a belt of giant strength (+4 str) at the same time and get maximum benefit from both (+6 str). Im not really all that familiar with the 2.0 rules, but that still sounds fishy to me. I always thought that those items simply raised your strength to a set number, instead of adding a bonus to your score.

Is anyone out there still familiar enough with the 2.0 rules that you can help settle this argument?
Illion the Red
12-28-05, 02:50 PM one of my friends hates HATES the stacking rules of 3.5 for some reason, and he always tries to skirt around them at every opportunity. I always try to explain the value of the stacking rules but he always cites old 2.0 rules where you could stack all sorts of crazy things together and insists that in 2.0 someone could wear gauntlets of ogre power (+2 str) and a belt of giant strength (+4 str) at the same time and get maximum benefit from both (+6 str). Im not really all that familiar with the 2.0 rules, but that still sounds fishy to me. I always thought that those items simply raised your strength to a set number, instead of adding a bonus to your score.

Is anyone out there still familiar enough with the 2.0 rules that you can help settle this argument?

2.0 Gauntlets of Ogre Power granted you an 18/00 strength in your arms. The girdle of Giant Strength (depends on giant type but we'll go for the gusto and say Storm here) granted you a strength of 24. There was no stacking. These were not bonuses. They were static numbers.

Now, if you were wearing Gauntlets of Ogre Power and a Girdle of Giant Strength, you could do extra special, wonderful things with a Hammer of Thunderbolts, but other than that, the Girdle overruled (you could even say overlapped) the Gauntlets.
Beware of Kobold
12-28-05, 02:53 PM that's kinda how I thought it worked, thanks for the quick response
Dark Voivode
12-28-05, 03:04 PM That whole stacking thing that occured in 2nd Ed was due to unclear descriptions of the items. With the stacking rules written into the various items this time, it makes it much less a munchkin's tool unless a DM is not paying attention. Granted, you can have 6-8 stacking bonuses now, but at least it's clear on how they stack and why.

Happy arguing.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht
12-28-05, 06:00 PM Ah yes, 2e, when you could get an AC of -33 just by using the DMG, the PHB, and the MM, rendering you unhittable by anything, except on a natural 20. Slap the person upside the head, and tell him that this isn't 2e. If he continue, remind him why the DMG is a hardcover.
Escef
12-28-05, 06:08 PM 2.0 Gauntlets of Ogre Power granted you an 18/00 strength in your arms. The girdle of Giant Strength (depends on giant type but we'll go for the gusto and say Storm here) granted you a strength of 24. There was no stacking. These were not bonuses. They were static numbers.

Now, if you were wearing Gauntlets of Ogre Power and a Girdle of Giant Strength, you could do extra special, wonderful things with a Hammer of Thunderbolts, but other than that, the Girdle overruled (you could even say overlapped) the Gauntlets.

Nope, as I recall, if you worre both a girdle and gauntlets you got the bonuses from both Str scores (this was ridiculously high). I'd love to bust out my books to back me up, but they're packed away and I'm not keen on trying to dig them up until the Army gives me a permanent duty station.
RogerWilco
12-28-05, 06:31 PM Ah yes, 2e, when you could get an AC of -33 just by using the DMG, the PHB, and the MM, rendering you unhittable by anything, except on a natural 20. Slap the person upside the head, and tell him that this isn't 2e. If he continue, remind him why the DMG is a hardcover.
I know a DM who's original DMG has gone soft from all the slapping he's donw with it... (not kidding)
cwslyclgh
12-28-05, 06:36 PM Nope, as I recall, if you worre both a girdle and gauntlets you got the bonuses from both Str scores Nope you only got the highest one... Except when using it with a hammer of thunderbolts when all gauntlet and girdle bonuses applied... and that was specifically spelled out in the item description.
Just another user
12-28-05, 06:54 PM Ah yes, 2e, when you could get an AC of -33 just by using the DMG, the PHB, and the MM, rendering you unhittable by anything, except on a natural 20. Slap the person upside the head, and tell him that this isn't 2e. If he continue, remind him why the DMG is a hardcover.
What!? -10 AC is the lowest (highest?) that you can get in AD&D 2nd. Ever.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht
12-28-05, 07:02 PM What!? -10 AC is the lowest (highest?) that you can get in AD&D 2nd. Ever.
Explain the Dragons, then.

It's easy. 25 Dex, +5 great wyrm gold dragon hide armor, +5 shield, and bracers of Armor AC 2. All of them stacked. If rings of protection existed in 2e (I can't remember, sadly), drop it to AC -38.

Edit: Drop it to AC -34 or -39 if you use +5 armor from a great wyrm red dragon dracolich's scales.
FWHGilby
12-28-05, 07:20 PM Ho hum, I have my 2ed books still and I don't have to look this one up. As written the guantlets of ogre power and Belt of giant strength DID stack. Also in theory you could have a massive -AC. I in one game could have had something like a negative25 AC vs piercing missles. My GM would only let my AC go to -10. Either way you look at it, whether you like it or not, you're at the mercy of GM discretion.
red_scare87
12-28-05, 07:28 PM Ah yes, 2e, when you could get an AC of -33 just by using the DMG, the PHB, and the MM, rendering you unhittable by anything, except on a natural 20. Slap the person upside the head, and tell him that this isn't 2e. If he continue, remind him why the DMG is a hardcover.

**pulls out 2nd Edition sourcebooks and the supplement "Council of Wyrms"**

Well, in Council of Wyrms it lists Gold Dragons as having an AC of -12 so I suppose that you can get lower than AC -10 in 2nd Edition. However, in the 2nd Edition DMG it doesn't say anywhere specifically that armor class can never be lower than -10. It does, however say this:

Armor Class is measured on a scale from 10, the worst(no armor), to the -10, the best(very powerful magic armors).

However, Council of Wyrms contradicts this but if I had to deal with a Great Wyrm Gold Dragon, I'd allow the -12. Though I wouldn't allow anything lower than -10 for a normal character.

Although, for the OP 2nd Edition rules do not apply because if you're playing 3.5, 2e means absolutely nothing. Tell this kid sorry and if he protests tell him to find a group that plays 2nd Edition. Heck, if you wanna nail him with the DMG, go for it. It sounds like he deserves it.
Escef
12-28-05, 07:30 PM According to the rules, in 2e AD&D the best AC you could get was -10. The only weirdness I ever heard of concerning this in an official product was the Great Wyrm Gold Dragon having an AC of -11 (Edit: or was it -12, as another poster noted? Like I said my stuff is in storage and I'm not about to dig through it for this). I don't know if it was an editing oversight or what, but it was there from the first printing and was not corrected when the Monstrous Compendiums were replaced by the Monstrous Manual. As to whether the "nothing better than -10" rule was still around when the black cover rule books hit the market, I do not know. I do know that many DMs houseruled otherwise from day 1 all the same.
cwslyclgh
12-28-05, 07:36 PM Ho hum, I have my 2ed books still and I don't have to look this one up. As written the guantlets of ogre power and Belt of giant strength DID stackas noted above only in 1 specific instance.
primemover003
12-28-05, 07:39 PM Explain the Dragons, then.

It's easy. 25 Dex, +5 great wyrm gold dragon hide armor, +5 shield, and bracers of Armor AC 2. All of them stacked. If rings of protection existed in 2e (I can't remember, sadly), drop it to AC -38.
Actually there were Rings AND Cloaks of Protection in 2e and wearing them stacked!!!

CoP's however morphed into Cloaks of Resistance for 3E.
sandskimmer
12-28-05, 07:46 PM Yes, -10 AC was the best a PC could attain. Even though it was possible to get a lower AC from magic items & a high DEX, it capped out at -10, so some of your items went to waste. Monsters, however, did not abide by this rule since they had natural armor. Only the Red & Gold wyrms went below this limit though (-11 & -12 respectively).

Also, Bracers of AC did NOT stack with armor. It specifically said so in the item descriptions. Rings of Protection, did however, stack with armor or bracers of armor.

And don't even get me started on how all monsters used a priest's THAC0 & never got strength bonuses to hit or damage, or con bonuses to HP...
Man in the Funny Hat
12-28-05, 07:47 PM Nope you only got the highest one... Except when using it with a hammer of thunderbolts when all gauntlet and girdle bonuses applied... and that was specifically spelled out in the item description.And again, no - their effects DID combine in all circumstances, not just with the HoT (and Maul/Mattock of Titans as well), and THAT was spelled out in the item description. It carried over that way from 1E. In fact, it was frequently debated from 1E right up until 3E BECAUSE they did combine rather than rule that the Girdles simply supersede the Gauntlet effects as would have been sensible and desirable for game balance reasons. It was a munchkin/powergamers dream, and everybody knew it, and it was heinously stupid to officially insist that it made sense, was not unbalanced, and mostly that their costs were not hopelessly out of whack.

The lame official explanation was always that the Gauntlets specifically provided strength in the arms, not the body overall, and that the Girdles were a more overall effect or some such nonsense, so therefore the girdles in particular were not underpriced because they did not provide the upper body strength that gauntlets did and that this was some kind of drawback to their usefulness (you could rip your own arms off or something equally stupid and it was left WITHOUT actual rules to that effect despite the assertion). If I had bothered to keep any 2E materials I'd cite pages and provide direct quotes for you. Just google Usenet posts on the subject from before 2000 and you'll see.

You may be misrembering, or just remembering a house rule.

Edit: I remember pretty clearly that 2E instituted a rule that limited PLAYER CHARACTER armor classes to a max of -10 regardless of whether various bonuses would otherwise have reduced it even further. AC's of monsters were certainly not constrained by that limit. In some circumstances it was sensible to nonetheless use armor and such that WOULD exceed the AC-10 limit as it was still possible for wierd attacks that ignored armor or dex bonuses, or your shield and its bonuses, etc.
Escef
12-28-05, 07:58 PM And don't even get me started on how all monsters used a priest's THAC0 & never got strength bonuses to hit or damage, or con bonuses to HP...

Actually, some monsters did get Str bonuses to hit and damage, most notably ogres, giants, and titans. This was largely on account of the fact that those are the only creatures that HAD Str scores. None of them had Con scores. Only a handful of monsters had any ability scores other than Int.
cwslyclgh
12-28-05, 08:10 PM And again, no - their effects DID combine in all circumstances, not just with the HoT (and Maul/Mattock of Titans as well), and THAT was spelled out in the item description. It carried over that way from 1E. In fact, it was frequently debated from 1E right up until 3E BECAUSE they did combine rather than rule that the Girdles simply supersede the Gauntlet effects as would have been sensible and desirable for game balance reasons. It was a munchkin/powergamers dream, and everybody knew it, and it was heinously stupid to officially insist that it made sense, was not unbalanced, and mostly that their costs were not hopelessly out of whack.

how about this... Prove it... I have been playing AD&D for 20+ years, and still run a 1e game every week, along with a 3e game) I have played in every edition, and have NEVER heard of the effects stacking except in the case of HoT until I read this thread.

some points of conention... A: if it was so, then there would have been no need to say that the Hammer of thunderbolts allowed you to all of the bonuses of the gauntelets and girdle (since you would be doing so anyway).

B. a direct quote from Girdle of giant strength (2e)

The strength gained is not cumulative with normal or magical strength bonuses except in combuination with gauntlets of ogre power and magical warhammers). That quote is an obvious reference to the hammer of thunderbolts, and to read it otherwise is simply a munchkins wishful wetdream. (and no place in the mattock or maul of the titans does it mention the gauntlets of ogrepower and girdle of giant strength together).

what counter proff can you offor?
Escef
12-28-05, 08:25 PM how about this... Prove it... I have been playing AD&D for 20+ years, and still run a 1e game every week, along with a 3e game) I have played in every edition, and have NEVER heard of the effects stacking except in the case of HoT until I read this thread.

...

what counter proff can you offor?

Ok, I've been playing for 18 years, so what? Memories are shaky at times, especially for such infrequently used material (for example, did you know that under 2e rules, probably 1e as well, you could be killed by a friendly Haste spell?) Now, you say at first that they only stack for HoT, then your quote from the Girdle description itself simply states "magical hammers", which is not a clear reference to the HoT, but to magical hammers in general.

I think you need to double check the text on everything in question, just to make sure nothing was missed. I clearly remember just how slap-dash the editing of early TSR products could be (mostly bad organization and descriptions not being properly cross checked).
Dig
12-28-05, 09:05 PM simply tell him, were not playing 2E anymore. :rolleyes:
cwslyclgh
12-28-05, 09:09 PM then your quote from the Girdle description itself simply states "magical hammers", which is not a clear reference to the HoT, but to magical hammers in general. the original 1e has a (qv) after the above quote, which is an indication that you are supposed to check the section on magical hammers to see what they are talking about, where in you will discover that ONLY the HoT says anything about it. Even if that was not the case and it worked in relation to "magical hammers in general" that is a far cry form "you always get it" is it not?

for example, did you know that under 2e rules, probably 1e as well, you could be killed by a friendly Haste spell?) Yes I did know this, you could be killed by any spell which unaturaly aged you.
Thurbane
12-28-05, 09:23 PM As stupid as it sounds, the Hammer/Girdle/Gauntlets combo was the exception to the rule, and DID stack.

Quotes from 2E DMG:
Gauntlets of Ogre Power - "These gauntlets are particularly desirable when combined with a girdle of giant strength and a hurled weapon."
Girdle of Ginat Strength -"The strength gained is not cumulative with normal or magical Strength bonuses except in combination with gauntlets of ogre power and magical warhammers."
Hammer of Thunderbolts - "If the wielder wears a girdle of giant strength and gauntlets of ogre power nad he knows the hammer's true name, the weapon can be used to full effect: When swung or hurled it gains a +5 bonus, double damage dice, all girdle and gauntlet bonuses, and it strikes dead any giant upon which it scores a hit."

Now I fully agree this was ridiculous, but it WAS in the RAW...
Shriker
12-28-05, 10:04 PM one of my friends hates HATES the stacking rules of 3.5 for some reason, and he always tries to skirt around them at every opportunity. I always try to explain the value of the stacking rules but he always cites old 2.0 rules where you could stack all sorts of crazy things together and insists that in 2.0 someone could wear gauntlets of ogre power (+2 str) and a belt of giant strength (+4 str) at the same time and get maximum benefit from both (+6 str). Im not really all that familiar with the 2.0 rules, but that still sounds fishy to me. I always thought that those items simply raised your strength to a set number, instead of adding a bonus to your score.

Is anyone out there still familiar enough with the 2.0 rules that you can help settle this argument?

what you should do is tell him that the master can change the rules if he wants to, No player can question it. If he doesn't like it, don't play
Shriker
12-28-05, 10:05 PM the dm can change anything that he wants!!!
Escef
12-28-05, 10:13 PM the original 1e has a (qv) after the above quote, which is an indication that you are supposed to check the section on magical hammers to see what they are talking about, where in you will discover that ONLY the HoT says anything about it. Even if that was not the case and it worked in relation to "magical hammers in general" that is a far cry form "you always get it" is it not?

Ok, that clarifies things a bit. As I said before, my books are in storage, elsewise I would have looked it up myself (and been able to support you). I'll come right out and say that I don't remember all the 1e rules very well (only gamed in 1e a couple years before switching to 2e).

Yes I did know this, you could be killed by any spell which unaturaly aged you.

Funny thing is, I only found one spot in the 2e rules that ever mentioned it. A single sentence in the description of the System Shock roll in the description of the Constitution ability. It's one of those things that is really easy to forget about. (I didn't even realize it until about a year after 3e came out and was paging through my old books.)
Illion the Red
12-29-05, 11:36 AM There is another example in AD&D of an armor class below -10 before "Council of Wyrms" came out. (If you still have the book) check out the Deities and Demigods entry for Indra. The "Overgod" for the Indian pantheon was listed with an AC of -12.

[side note] It is a sad commentary that I remember this as I haven't seen the book since the late 80's...
cwslyclgh
12-29-05, 11:58 AM in 1e -10 was not a maximum AC, it was just as high as the ac tables went to, you were expected to beable to extrapolate beyond them if you needed to... (just like the experience tables in the PHB)

this trend was continued in early 2e, the -10 was no place said to be a maximum, it was just that the table stopped there. (thus in the MC some of the dragons have AC's lower then -10)... someplace along the line the thought that becaus the table stopped at -10 it must be the maximum developed, and seems to have stuck around (and infact seemed to be codified in later 2e).

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Beware of Kobold 12-28-05, 02:43 PM	one of my friends hates HATES the stacking rules of 3.5 for some reason, and he always tries to skirt around them at every opportunity. I always try to explain the value of the stacking rules but he always cites old 2.0 rules where you could stack all sorts of crazy things together and insists that in 2.0 someone could wear gauntlets of ogre power (+2 str) and a belt of giant strength (+4 str) at the same time and get maximum benefit from both (+6 str). Im not really all that familiar with the 2.0 rules, but that still sounds fishy to me. I always thought that those items simply raised your strength to a set number, instead of adding a bonus to your score. Is anyone out there still familiar enough with the 2.0 rules that you can help settle this argument?
Illion the Red 12-28-05, 02:50 PM	one of my friends hates HATES the stacking rules of 3.5 for some reason, and he always tries to skirt around them at every opportunity. I always try to explain the value of the stacking rules but he always cites old 2.0 rules where you could stack all sorts of crazy things together and insists that in 2.0 someone could wear gauntlets of ogre power (+2 str) and a belt of giant strength (+4 str) at the same time and get maximum benefit from both (+6 str). Im not really all that familiar with the 2.0 rules, but that still sounds fishy to me. I always thought that those items simply raised your strength to a set number, instead of adding a bonus to your score. Is anyone out there still familiar enough with the 2.0 rules that you can help settle this argument? 2.0 Gauntlets of Ogre Power granted you an 18/00 strength in your arms. The girdle of Giant Strength (depends on giant type but we'll go for the gusto and say Storm here) granted you a strength of 24. There was no stacking. These were not bonuses. They were static numbers. Now, if you were wearing Gauntlets of Ogre Power and a Girdle of Giant Strength, you could do extra special, wonderful things with a Hammer of Thunderbolts, but other than that, the Girdle overruled (you could even say overlapped) the Gauntlets.
Beware of Kobold 12-28-05, 02:53 PM	that's kinda how I thought it worked, thanks for the quick response
Dark Voivode 12-28-05, 03:04 PM	That whole stacking thing that occured in 2nd Ed was due to unclear descriptions of the items. With the stacking rules written into the various items this time, it makes it much less a munchkin's tool unless a DM is not paying attention. Granted, you can have 6-8 stacking bonuses now, but at least it's clear on how they stack and why. Happy arguing.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 12-28-05, 06:00 PM	Ah yes, 2e, when you could get an AC of -33 just by using the DMG, the PHB, and the MM, rendering you unhittable by anything, except on a natural 20. Slap the person upside the head, and tell him that this isn't 2e. If he continue, remind him why the DMG is a hardcover.
Escef 12-28-05, 06:08 PM	2.0 Gauntlets of Ogre Power granted you an 18/00 strength in your arms. The girdle of Giant Strength (depends on giant type but we'll go for the gusto and say Storm here) granted you a strength of 24. There was no stacking. These were not bonuses. They were static numbers. Now, if you were wearing Gauntlets of Ogre Power and a Girdle of Giant Strength, you could do extra special, wonderful things with a Hammer of Thunderbolts, but other than that, the Girdle overruled (you could even say overlapped) the Gauntlets. Nope, as I recall, if you worre both a girdle and gauntlets you got the bonuses from both Str scores (this was ridiculously high). I'd love to bust out my books to back me up, but they're packed away and I'm not keen on trying to dig them up until the Army gives me a permanent duty station.
RogerWilco 12-28-05, 06:31 PM	Ah yes, 2e, when you could get an AC of -33 just by using the DMG, the PHB, and the MM, rendering you unhittable by anything, except on a natural 20. Slap the person upside the head, and tell him that this isn't 2e. If he continue, remind him why the DMG is a hardcover. I know a DM who's original DMG has gone soft from all the slapping he's donw with it... (not kidding)
cwslyclgh 12-28-05, 06:36 PM	Nope, as I recall, if you worre both a girdle and gauntlets you got the bonuses from both Str scores Nope you only got the highest one... Except when using it with a hammer of thunderbolts when all gauntlet and girdle bonuses applied... and that was specifically spelled out in the item description.
Just another user 12-28-05, 06:54 PM	Ah yes, 2e, when you could get an AC of -33 just by using the DMG, the PHB, and the MM, rendering you unhittable by anything, except on a natural 20. Slap the person upside the head, and tell him that this isn't 2e. If he continue, remind him why the DMG is a hardcover. What!? -10 AC is the lowest (highest?) that you can get in AD&D 2nd. Ever.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 12-28-05, 07:02 PM	What!? -10 AC is the lowest (highest?) that you can get in AD&D 2nd. Ever. Explain the Dragons, then. It's easy. 25 Dex, +5 great wyrm gold dragon hide armor, +5 shield, and bracers of Armor AC 2. All of them stacked. If rings of protection existed in 2e (I can't remember, sadly), drop it to AC -38. Edit: Drop it to AC -34 or -39 if you use +5 armor from a great wyrm red dragon dracolich's scales.
FWHGilby 12-28-05, 07:20 PM	Ho hum, I have my 2ed books still and I don't have to look this one up. As written the guantlets of ogre power and Belt of giant strength DID stack. Also in theory you could have a massive -AC. I in one game could have had something like a negative25 AC vs piercing missles. My GM would only let my AC go to -10. Either way you look at it, whether you like it or not, you're at the mercy of GM discretion.
red_scare87 12-28-05, 07:28 PM	Ah yes, 2e, when you could get an AC of -33 just by using the DMG, the PHB, and the MM, rendering you unhittable by anything, except on a natural 20. Slap the person upside the head, and tell him that this isn't 2e. If he continue, remind him why the DMG is a hardcover. pulls out 2nd Edition sourcebooks and the supplement "Council of Wyrms" Well, in Council of Wyrms it lists Gold Dragons as having an AC of -12 so I suppose that you can get lower than AC -10 in 2nd Edition. However, in the 2nd Edition DMG it doesn't say anywhere specifically that armor class can never be lower than -10. It does, however say this: Armor Class is measured on a scale from 10, the worst(no armor), to the -10, the best(very powerful magic armors). However, Council of Wyrms contradicts this but if I had to deal with a Great Wyrm Gold Dragon, I'd allow the -12. Though I wouldn't allow anything lower than -10 for a normal character. Although, for the OP 2nd Edition rules do not apply because if you're playing 3.5, 2e means absolutely nothing. Tell this kid sorry and if he protests tell him to find a group that plays 2nd Edition. Heck, if you wanna nail him with the DMG, go for it. It sounds like he deserves it.
Escef 12-28-05, 07:30 PM	According to the rules, in 2e AD&D the best AC you could get was -10. The only weirdness I ever heard of concerning this in an official product was the Great Wyrm Gold Dragon having an AC of -11 (Edit: or was it -12, as another poster noted? Like I said my stuff is in storage and I'm not about to dig through it for this). I don't know if it was an editing oversight or what, but it was there from the first printing and was not corrected when the Monstrous Compendiums were replaced by the Monstrous Manual. As to whether the "nothing better than -10" rule was still around when the black cover rule books hit the market, I do not know. I do know that many DMs houseruled otherwise from day 1 all the same.
cwslyclgh 12-28-05, 07:36 PM	Ho hum, I have my 2ed books still and I don't have to look this one up. As written the guantlets of ogre power and Belt of giant strength DID stackas noted above only in 1 specific instance.
primemover003 12-28-05, 07:39 PM	Explain the Dragons, then. It's easy. 25 Dex, +5 great wyrm gold dragon hide armor, +5 shield, and bracers of Armor AC 2. All of them stacked. If rings of protection existed in 2e (I can't remember, sadly), drop it to AC -38. Actually there were Rings AND Cloaks of Protection in 2e and wearing them stacked!!! CoP's however morphed into Cloaks of Resistance for 3E.
sandskimmer 12-28-05, 07:46 PM	Yes, -10 AC was the best a PC could attain. Even though it was possible to get a lower AC from magic items & a high DEX, it capped out at -10, so some of your items went to waste. Monsters, however, did not abide by this rule since they had natural armor. Only the Red & Gold wyrms went below this limit though (-11 & -12 respectively). Also, Bracers of AC did NOT stack with armor. It specifically said so in the item descriptions. Rings of Protection, did however, stack with armor or bracers of armor. And don't even get me started on how all monsters used a priest's THAC0 & never got strength bonuses to hit or damage, or con bonuses to HP...
Man in the Funny Hat 12-28-05, 07:47 PM	Nope you only got the highest one... Except when using it with a hammer of thunderbolts when all gauntlet and girdle bonuses applied... and that was specifically spelled out in the item description.And again, no - their effects DID combine in all circumstances, not just with the HoT (and Maul/Mattock of Titans as well), and THAT was spelled out in the item description. It carried over that way from 1E. In fact, it was frequently debated from 1E right up until 3E BECAUSE they did combine rather than rule that the Girdles simply supersede the Gauntlet effects as would have been sensible and desirable for game balance reasons. It was a munchkin/powergamers dream, and everybody knew it, and it was heinously stupid to officially insist that it made sense, was not unbalanced, and mostly that their costs were not hopelessly out of whack. The lame official explanation was always that the Gauntlets specifically provided strength in the arms, not the body overall, and that the Girdles were a more overall effect or some such nonsense, so therefore the girdles in particular were not underpriced because they did not provide the upper body strength that gauntlets did and that this was some kind of drawback to their usefulness (you could rip your own arms off or something equally stupid and it was left WITHOUT actual rules to that effect despite the assertion). If I had bothered to keep any 2E materials I'd cite pages and provide direct quotes for you. Just google Usenet posts on the subject from before 2000 and you'll see. You may be misrembering, or just remembering a house rule. Edit: I remember pretty clearly that 2E instituted a rule that limited PLAYER CHARACTER armor classes to a max of -10 regardless of whether various bonuses would otherwise have reduced it even further. AC's of monsters were certainly not constrained by that limit. In some circumstances it was sensible to nonetheless use armor and such that WOULD exceed the AC-10 limit as it was still possible for wierd attacks that ignored armor or dex bonuses, or your shield and its bonuses, etc.
Escef 12-28-05, 07:58 PM	And don't even get me started on how all monsters used a priest's THAC0 & never got strength bonuses to hit or damage, or con bonuses to HP... Actually, some monsters did get Str bonuses to hit and damage, most notably ogres, giants, and titans. This was largely on account of the fact that those are the only creatures that HAD Str scores. None of them had Con scores. Only a handful of monsters had any ability scores other than Int.
cwslyclgh 12-28-05, 08:10 PM	And again, no - their effects DID combine in all circumstances, not just with the HoT (and Maul/Mattock of Titans as well), and THAT was spelled out in the item description. It carried over that way from 1E. In fact, it was frequently debated from 1E right up until 3E BECAUSE they did combine rather than rule that the Girdles simply supersede the Gauntlet effects as would have been sensible and desirable for game balance reasons. It was a munchkin/powergamers dream, and everybody knew it, and it was heinously stupid to officially insist that it made sense, was not unbalanced, and mostly that their costs were not hopelessly out of whack. how about this... Prove it... I have been playing AD&D for 20+ years, and still run a 1e game every week, along with a 3e game) I have played in every edition, and have NEVER heard of the effects stacking except in the case of HoT until I read this thread. some points of conention... A: if it was so, then there would have been no need to say that the Hammer of thunderbolts allowed you to all of the bonuses of the gauntelets and girdle (since you would be doing so anyway). B. a direct quote from Girdle of giant strength (2e) The strength gained is not cumulative with normal or magical strength bonuses except in combuination with gauntlets of ogre power and magical warhammers). That quote is an obvious reference to the hammer of thunderbolts, and to read it otherwise is simply a munchkins wishful wetdream. (and no place in the mattock or maul of the titans does it mention the gauntlets of ogrepower and girdle of giant strength together). what counter proff can you offor?
Escef 12-28-05, 08:25 PM	how about this... Prove it... I have been playing AD&D for 20+ years, and still run a 1e game every week, along with a 3e game) I have played in every edition, and have NEVER heard of the effects stacking except in the case of HoT until I read this thread. ... what counter proff can you offor? Ok, I've been playing for 18 years, so what? Memories are shaky at times, especially for such infrequently used material (for example, did you know that under 2e rules, probably 1e as well, you could be killed by a friendly Haste spell?) Now, you say at first that they only stack for HoT, then your quote from the Girdle description itself simply states "magical hammers", which is not a clear reference to the HoT, but to magical hammers in general. I think you need to double check the text on everything in question, just to make sure nothing was missed. I clearly remember just how slap-dash the editing of early TSR products could be (mostly bad organization and descriptions not being properly cross checked).
Dig 12-28-05, 09:05 PM	simply tell him, were not playing 2E anymore. :rolleyes:
cwslyclgh 12-28-05, 09:09 PM	then your quote from the Girdle description itself simply states "magical hammers", which is not a clear reference to the HoT, but to magical hammers in general. the original 1e has a (qv) after the above quote, which is an indication that you are supposed to check the section on magical hammers to see what they are talking about, where in you will discover that ONLY the HoT says anything about it. Even if that was not the case and it worked in relation to "magical hammers in general" that is a far cry form "you always get it" is it not? for example, did you know that under 2e rules, probably 1e as well, you could be killed by a friendly Haste spell?) Yes I did know this, you could be killed by any spell which unaturaly aged you.
Thurbane 12-28-05, 09:23 PM	As stupid as it sounds, the Hammer/Girdle/Gauntlets combo was the exception to the rule, and DID stack. Quotes from 2E DMG: Gauntlets of Ogre Power - "These gauntlets are particularly desirable when combined with a girdle of giant strength and a hurled weapon." Girdle of Ginat Strength -"The strength gained is not cumulative with normal or magical Strength bonuses except in combination with gauntlets of ogre power and magical warhammers." Hammer of Thunderbolts - "If the wielder wears a girdle of giant strength and gauntlets of ogre power nad he knows the hammer's true name, the weapon can be used to full effect: When swung or hurled it gains a +5 bonus, double damage dice, all girdle and gauntlet bonuses, and it strikes dead any giant upon which it scores a hit." Now I fully agree this was ridiculous, but it WAS in the RAW...
Shriker 12-28-05, 10:04 PM	one of my friends hates HATES the stacking rules of 3.5 for some reason, and he always tries to skirt around them at every opportunity. I always try to explain the value of the stacking rules but he always cites old 2.0 rules where you could stack all sorts of crazy things together and insists that in 2.0 someone could wear gauntlets of ogre power (+2 str) and a belt of giant strength (+4 str) at the same time and get maximum benefit from both (+6 str). Im not really all that familiar with the 2.0 rules, but that still sounds fishy to me. I always thought that those items simply raised your strength to a set number, instead of adding a bonus to your score. Is anyone out there still familiar enough with the 2.0 rules that you can help settle this argument? what you should do is tell him that the master can change the rules if he wants to, No player can question it. If he doesn't like it, don't play
Shriker 12-28-05, 10:05 PM	the dm can change anything that he wants!!!
Escef 12-28-05, 10:13 PM	the original 1e has a (qv) after the above quote, which is an indication that you are supposed to check the section on magical hammers to see what they are talking about, where in you will discover that ONLY the HoT says anything about it. Even if that was not the case and it worked in relation to "magical hammers in general" that is a far cry form "you always get it" is it not? Ok, that clarifies things a bit. As I said before, my books are in storage, elsewise I would have looked it up myself (and been able to support you). I'll come right out and say that I don't remember all the 1e rules very well (only gamed in 1e a couple years before switching to 2e). Yes I did know this, you could be killed by any spell which unaturaly aged you. Funny thing is, I only found one spot in the 2e rules that ever mentioned it. A single sentence in the description of the System Shock roll in the description of the Constitution ability. It's one of those things that is really easy to forget about. (I didn't even realize it until about a year after 3e came out and was paging through my old books.)
Illion the Red 12-29-05, 11:36 AM	There is another example in AD&D of an armor class below -10 before "Council of Wyrms" came out. (If you still have the book) check out the Deities and Demigods entry for Indra. The "Overgod" for the Indian pantheon was listed with an AC of -12. [side note] It is a sad commentary that I remember this as I haven't seen the book since the late 80's...
cwslyclgh 12-29-05, 11:58 AM	in 1e -10 was not a maximum AC, it was just as high as the ac tables went to, you were expected to beable to extrapolate beyond them if you needed to... (just like the experience tables in the PHB) this trend was continued in early 2e, the -10 was no place said to be a maximum, it was just that the table stopped there. (thus in the MC some of the dragons have AC's lower then -10)... someplace along the line the thought that becaus the table stopped at -10 it must be the maximum developed, and seems to have stuck around (and infact seemed to be codified in later 2e).