Simplified Stacking: House Rules [Archive] - Wizards Community

Simplified Stacking: House Rules [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Electricbee
06-02-07, 08:14 PM Althought a well intentioned attempt to reign in powergaming, the 'stacking' rules currently are one of the most cumbersome parts of d and d.

I am toying with the idea of:

All bonuses being unnamed
Bonuses to a given roll don't everlap stack but they overlap and build instead

This building works like this: a bonus combines with a like bonus to grant a bonus one higher than either original bonus:
two +1 bonuses = a +2 bonus, two +4 bonuses = +5 bonus.

When combining more than two bonuses combine along the same lines, and if anything is lost in the process, it isn't significant enough to bump the bonus up to the next level.

For example:
four +1 bonuses = two +2 bonuses = +3 bonus
two +2 bonuses and two +3 bonus = three +3 bonuses = +4 bonus

or to look at it another way bonuses built on an exponential power of 2 progression as so:
1 +1 Bonus
2 +2 Bonus
4 +3 Bonus
8 +4 Bonus
16 +5 Bonus
32 +6 Bonus
64 +7 Bonus
128 +8 Bonus
256 +9 Bonus
512 +10 Bonus

The bonus the roll receives is equal to the bonus earned for the sum of the supporting bonuses. This is simple in my head but i'm not sure its coming across that way on here.

I'm trying to work out game ramifications of these changes, especially in the areas of mid and upper level character power curves. It seems that you could allow more treasure with + properties and other properties and not worry as much about the characters scaling out of play ability.

Does this make sense, if applied to magic and spell based bonuses?
Tequila_Sunrise
06-03-07, 05:16 PM I think you just invented a system more complicated than the stacking rules. I can see how you might find stacking rules to be complicated, especially if your game uses a lot of weird bonuses (luck, profane, blah, blah...), but most folks find that it's simple enough after they get used to it.
Pfisiar
06-03-07, 05:18 PM What's so complicated about remembering that bonuses of the same type don't normally stack? And that unnamed bonuses do stack?

How's that more complex than that system?

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Electricbee 06-02-07, 08:14 PM	Althought a well intentioned attempt to reign in powergaming, the 'stacking' rules currently are one of the most cumbersome parts of d and d. I am toying with the idea of: All bonuses being unnamed Bonuses to a given roll don't everlap stack but they overlap and build instead This building works like this: a bonus combines with a like bonus to grant a bonus one higher than either original bonus: two +1 bonuses = a +2 bonus, two +4 bonuses = +5 bonus. When combining more than two bonuses combine along the same lines, and if anything is lost in the process, it isn't significant enough to bump the bonus up to the next level. For example: four +1 bonuses = two +2 bonuses = +3 bonus two +2 bonuses and two +3 bonus = three +3 bonuses = +4 bonus or to look at it another way bonuses built on an exponential power of 2 progression as so: 1 +1 Bonus 2 +2 Bonus 4 +3 Bonus 8 +4 Bonus 16 +5 Bonus 32 +6 Bonus 64 +7 Bonus 128 +8 Bonus 256 +9 Bonus 512 +10 Bonus The bonus the roll receives is equal to the bonus earned for the sum of the supporting bonuses. This is simple in my head but i'm not sure its coming across that way on here. I'm trying to work out game ramifications of these changes, especially in the areas of mid and upper level character power curves. It seems that you could allow more treasure with + properties and other properties and not worry as much about the characters scaling out of play ability. Does this make sense, if applied to magic and spell based bonuses?
Tequila_Sunrise 06-03-07, 05:16 PM	I think you just invented a system more complicated than the stacking rules. I can see how you might find stacking rules to be complicated, especially if your game uses a lot of weird bonuses (luck, profane, blah, blah...), but most folks find that it's simple enough after they get used to it.
Pfisiar 06-03-07, 05:18 PM	What's so complicated about remembering that bonuses of the same type don't normally stack? And that unnamed bonuses do stack? How's that more complex than that system?