3.5 Why The Limitation?

[Deth Muncher]

Specifically, why can you only have one kind of bonus for a particular thing? I'll give you an example:

Bob the Fighter wears a piece of armor, which grants him a +5AC Armor Bonus. He then asks Bob the Wizard to cast Greater Mage Armor on him, giving him a +6AC Armor Bonus. Instead of having a +11, he now has a +6 (plus any bonuses/minuses conferred by his physical armor).

So why not give Bob the Fighter a +11 Armor Bonus? I mean, yes, it's hideously huge, but following Gentleman's Rules, this means that monsters can do it too. And this doesn't just go for AC, I mean everything. Someone might have a necklace that gives them +1 to saves, but might also have a cloak that does the same thing. Or even, someone having multiple Enhancement Bonuses. Just in general.

Now, mind you, I can understand certain things. Da Rules say that you can't get multiple bonuses (am I the only one with the urge to refer to that as "bonii?") from similar things, i.e. if you cast Tenser's Transformation, and then chug a Strength Potion, they don't stack. But stuff like having armor and then getting a Mage Armor, for example, I personally feel SHOULD stack - it's like having an extra bubble of force around you. Or like having a shield with the spell Shield.

Also, I realize I failed at making examples from things other than AC, but surely there are other examples. My sleep-deprived brain must just be lacking.

*A side note, this doesn't stem from any real experience, it's just something bouncing around in my head.*

[Kylarra]

Because then you have ridiculously high bonuses just by tagging +Int/wis/stat here to every single extra item you own. NWN allowed for stat bonus stacking from multiple sources and it was child's play to get a +12 or so fairly early on.

[Nohwl]

you would run into the problem of what do you allow to stack. what is special about ac? why should it be allowed to stack and why cant strength bonuses stack? you can make the exact same argument for strength that you made for ac stacking. it seems simpler to allow only 1 of each type and to not make any exceptions, besides, it would make casters even more powerful.

[ericgrau]

Because then you'll have +500 to the AC with only a little tweaking, so will the monsters, and oh darn you got almost as much on your attack bonus but it was only 462. Guess only nat 20's ever hit. <Yawn>. Ya, game would be boring.

[Elfin]

I think there's a "Behind the Curtain" in the DMG on this very subject.

[quick_comment]

The reason is that in order to stop characters from putting all their cash into a single bonus, the prices have to scale quadratically (or at least more than linear).

This means that the bonuses have to be exclusive, or it breaks the price scaling

[Draz74]

Whee, I have 43 magic items that each give me a +2 enhancement bonus to Dexterity ...

[sadi]

Might want to trade/sell some of those things for something a bit more powerful.

[Dixieboy]

From a non-mechanic standpoints it makes little sense, but the potential for gamebrokenness is too high if it wasn't so.

[Doc Roc]

It makes sense from a mechanical standpoint. It's your job to justify it within the fluff. Sometimes, things have to be done to make a system work. I wish they'd made more decisions like this one.

[quick_comment]

From a non-mechanic standpoints it makes little sense, but the potential for gamebrokenness is too high if it wasn't so.

It makes perfect sense in a mechanic standpoint. It takes four times as much magical energy to make an item that is twice as powerful.

[oxinabox]

cos stacking makes things too big, too much math.
For example the sorceress in the party is being allows to stack a cloak of charisma with a head band of charisma (This may or maynot be because shes the DM's gf, but i don;'t begrudge him - it's too the benifit of the whole party, anyway she's a friend (and if i don't let it slide then i'll ruin the fun for myself of a great adventure))
How ever +8 charisma means that her character who has 7 ranks in bluff, is much better at bluffing than my character (who's fluff wise is a con artist) - who has 11 ranks in bluff and +3 Cha.
Eventually if one kept stacking abitlity bonuses like that skill points would become irrelevant.

for AC: Eventually AC gets too high, it can't be hit.
there is no fun hititng only on a 20.
as far as your statement of gentlemans agreement: if PC's can do it so can monsters, it doesn't balance.
AC is VS attack bonus.
Not AC vs AC.
and there are alot more things that boost AC (take alook at the lvl 1 psywarrior powers) than boost Attack.
So we end up with inbalance
there is no fun

[lesser_minion]

The mechanical justification is that characters could gain far too high a bonus from allowing bonus stacking.

The fluff justification is simply that there is only so far you can change something in a particular way - you can't harden a human's skin to the point that they gain a +1,392 bonus to AC, no matter how many custom ioun stones you have.

[Doc Roc]

The mechanical justification is that characters could gain far too high a bonus from allowing bonus stacking.

The fluff justification is simply that there is only so far you can change something in a particular way - you can't harden a human's skin to the point that they gain a +1,392 bonus to AC, no matter how many custom ioun stones you have.

I believe the working max is somewhere around 350 or so. I can't remember what Otto's Record was. This is presuming no loops or ni-infinite tricks, naturally.

Numbers go high enough already.

[Irreverent Fool]

Ioun stones.

obnoxious
sig

[Zeta Kai]

It might work in a different game. For instance that's one of the things that I'm attempting to do with the rules for the game system that I'm currently working on. Of course, I'm also limiting the total number of magic items that one can have to just three, & no more. I want magic items to be special & memorable, not something that you just pick up, add to your sheet, & forget about. I think bonus-stacking can function in a system that doesn't have such a strong Christmas Tree Effect, but standard D&D just has too many means of gaining pluses.

[BobVosh]

I believe the working max is somewhere around 350 or so. I can't remember what Otto's Record was. This is presuming no loops or ni-infinite tricks, naturally.

Numbers go high enough already.

I believe it was 420ish for one round, then dropped to 360ish for the rest of the fight.

Just think of it as a fundamental law of magic. 2+3=3. Always. The law of conservation of matter/energy doesn't apply.

As for stuff like mage armor + nonmagic armor: The mage armor is completely ignored if it is beaten. Therefore you can't add it to nonmagic armor. So on and so forth.

*edit* @Zeta: With fewer items it becomes even more imperative, IMHO, to stack them. I can get +6 to ac, and in order to even out this advantage they have to stack all three of magic items to hit me? Deal, anyone who doesn't won't have the same chance. Therefore everyone should stack.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

The main reason is opposed stats.

1) Number of abilities. Let's say you have character A (a wizard) with a save DC of 20. You have monster B with a Fort save of +10. He makes the save 50% of the time, even matchup. Save DCs take a single ability score into account, while saves take 3 ability scores, so to get his DCs up to 30, A only has to boost Int while B has to boost Con, Dex, and Wis to get his saves up to par.

2) Range of randomness. If you have a +0 modifier against DC 20, a d20 roll is hugely variable; if you have a +19 modifier against DC 20, that d20 roll is completely irrelevant unless it's a roll with crit fails. If you could stack bonuses, no one would need to roll anything anymore, except maybe to flip a coin to see whether you got a natural 1 or a natural 20.

[Irreverent Fool]

The main reason is opposed stats.

1) Number of abilities. Let's say you have character A (a wizard) with a save DC of 20. You have monster B with a Fort save of +10. He makes the save 50% of the time, even matchup. Save DCs take a single ability score into account, while saves take 3 ability scores, so to get his DCs up to 30, A only has to boost Int while B has to boost Con, Dex, and Wis to get his saves up to par.

2) Range of randomness. If you have a +0 modifier against DC 20, a d20 roll is hugely variable; if you have a +19 modifier against DC 20, that d20 roll is completely irrelevant unless it's a roll with crit fails. If you could stack bonuses, no one would need to roll anything anymore, except maybe to flip a coin to see whether you got a natural 1 or a natural 20.

This.

With the ability to stack AC and Strength, combat turns into a matter of who has the biggest toys.

1) is not entirely true, however. With bonuses stacking, resistance bonuses stack as well.

I once played in a game where the DM decided everything stacked. (Mostly because we didn't know better initially). The result is (as usual) to make primary spellcasters more powerful. My wizard ended up with an AC too high for anything to hit him and more HP than the party barbarian thanks to stacking multiple buff spells on himself.

obnoxious
sig

[PairO'Dice Lost]

1) is not entirely true, however. With bonuses stacking, resistance bonuses stack as well.

Resistance bonuses would stack, but not the ability bonuses. Yes, it's easier to find resistance bonuses than DC bonuses, but since the DC increases stack as well, unless you keep all three about the same you'll have one weaker save; that's all the single-stat-based caster needs to get you with something.

[Epinephrine]

...am I the only one with the urge to refer to that as "bonii?"

Probably ;)

It would be boni, not bonii.
You are likely thinking of the word radius, which becomes radii. Bonus would be pluralized just like virus: virus -> viri; bonus -> boni.

[warrl]

Fluff sort-of-explanation:

It isn't an AC bonus, it's an ARMOR bonus to AC.

No matter how many armor-bonus-granting things you have, that is still leather armor you're wearing. Making it extra-strong leather is difficult magic. Making it strong-as-chainmail leather isn't a larger quantity of the same difficult magic, it's even-more-difficult magic. And to make strong-as-plate leather... that's really difficult magic.

Natural armor - we're talking about your SKIN, which is busy doing a lot of things besides holding your innards in. It's breathing, it's sweating, it's stretching, it's moving. Powerful magic is required to make SKIN much tougher without interfering with all these other things.

Same sort of argument for other typed bonuses to armor class.

[Drakevarg]

This obviously isn't RAW, but the way I run it is that using, for example, Magic Weapon on a +3 longsword doesn't work because the longsword already HAS Magic Weapon cast on it. (Greater Magic Weapon, actually, but still.) Think about it this way; with the exception of god-forged weaponry, which basically give the laws of the universe the finger, all magic weapons had to be forged by a blacksmith and enchanted by a spellcaster. So, what spell gives bonuses to weapons? Magic Weapon. Then you cast Permenancy, and bam, +1 weapon. (Or +2, since RAW says magic weapons are always masterwork, and are already +1.)

So when the fellow who bought this enchanted sword asks his mage friend to cast magic weapon on it, the spell doesn't do anything since it's already cast on it, and doesn't stack on itself. By the same logic, a flaming longsword wouldn't be effected by casting Flame Blade on it.

[Dixieboy]

It makes perfect sense in a mechanic standpoint. It takes four times as much magical energy to make an item that is twice as powerful.

Which is why i said "Non"

[Doc Roc]

Probably ;)

It would be boni, not bonii.
You are likely thinking of the word radius, which becomes radii. Bonus would be pluralized just like virus: virus -> viri; bonus -> boni.

Actually, that's not the plural of virus. The plural of virus is either viruses or epidemic, depending on your... okay, this joke? Not funny. Let's... ignore it.

[Forbiddenwar]

I cast mage armor. I cast permanency.
repeat.
I cast magic weapon. I can permanency.
repeat.
and being an undead lich who has done this 15 times a day for the last 10000 years.
I now have infinite AC and infinite Attack and infinite damage.
at cr13
Yeah, that'll be a fun game.

[Riffington]

*edit* @Zeta: With fewer items it becomes even more imperative, IMHO, to stack them. I can get +6 to ac, and in order to even out this advantage they have to stack all three of magic items to hit me? Deal, anyone who doesn't won't have the same chance. Therefore everyone should stack.

I don't think I understand this, perhaps you can flesh it out more? Why (suppose I am a swordsage restricted to 3 items) should they all be of the same type? Why not armor, sword, and cloak, each doing a different thing?

[Dixieboy]

Actually, that's not the plural of virus. The plural of virus is either viruses or epidemic, depending on your... okay, this joke? Not funny. Let's... ignore it.

I thought the plural of virus was vira [/completely missing the point]