View source for Talk:Fixed Bonus Types (3.5e Variant Rule)

Might it be easier to say what type of bonus and penalty types do exist for this rule? --[[User:Havvy|Havvy]] 07:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

:Probably. I could get to amending it soon.

::No deflection means there's no "catch all" defense which applied to both touch and flat.  That makes me... nervous. -- [[User:Eiji-kun|Eiji-kun]] 07:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

:::Read all the attendant rules this is meant to be used with, and your nervousness should be gone.

== Name ==

I feel that the name '''Fixed''' Bonus Types implies that the rest of the variant rules don't necessarily fix a problem.  Either that, or it is redundant.  Wouldn't switching that for '''Condensed''' Bonus Types make it more descriptive?  --[[User:Havvy|Havvy]] 06:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

== Ratings ==
{{Rating
|rater=Havvy
|rating=like
|reason=Normally I use the exact problem he described to great benefit to getting a +12 to all attacks for everybody in the party through spells while giving +9 AC to everybody in the party. This fixes that exploit, leading to actually being tactical being more useful.}}
{{Rating |rater=Fluffykittens
|rating=dislike
|reason=One of the few poorly written articles by the usually competent MS. This does not get rid of the problems of bonus stacking, it just changes what the problems are.
}}
{{Rating |rater=DanielDraco
|rating=dislike
|reason=This rule prevents a lot of cheese. It also throws a wrench in a whole lot of things that are not cheese at all. I see it as causing complications more than fixing problems.
}}
{{Rating |rater=Luigifan18
|rating=oppose
|reason=This gets rid of a lot of very useful bonus types, like insight and circumstance. Sure, some bonus types are useless, but this goes too far, and may result in more bonuses simply becoming typeless (allowing them to stack with anything). I agree with Draco, it causes more problems than it fixes.
}}
{{Rating |rater=Franken Kesey
|rating=oppose
|reason=This replaces one broken system, with something also broken.
}}

:This is community opposed, and needs to be sandboxed. --[[User:Franken Kesey|Franken Kesey]] ([[User talk:Franken Kesey|talk]]) 12:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

:: ...No. There's a difference between community opposed and community disliked. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] ([[User talk:Ghostwheel|talk]]) 13:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

:::Sorry, misread. --[[User:Franken Kesey|Franken Kesey]] ([[User talk:Franken Kesey|talk]]) 13:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

== K.I.S.S. ==

Something's been bugging me for a bit and I was encouraged to post this from a conversation.  I don't mind the idea of trimming down the various bonus types, it's just... I think you got rid of the wrong ones.

Deflection, they removed it, but then kinda sorta replaced it with enhancement.  Why?  For ease of conversion, you have something that already does what you need (something that applies to both touch and flatfooted).  Keep the most common type (deflection) and remove the others.  They also removed circumstance, which is almost always DM granted anyway and now you have no RAW ability to offer situational benefits.  And resistance is gone, the de-facto save-booster.  Why?  And inherent too, the only source being capped at +5 and accessable only through high level tomes or wishes.  Really?
 
You think that in order to do the stated goal you get rid of the ones that are unusual rare types, since common types can't stack anyway.  In fact, I'm going to investigate this right now...
 
*Ability: mods have Untyped (such as from level), Enhancement (common), or Inherent (VERY rare, capped).
*AC: Shield and enhancement to shield (main AC only), Untyped, Armor and enhancement to armor, natural (two/three for flat), Dex, Dodge (two for touch), Deflection (for both), Circumstance (DM granted), Morale (rare and generally not permenant), Size (inherent in race usually)
*Attack: Untyped, Enhancement (common), Circumstance (DM granted), Morale (rare and generally not permenant), Size (inherent in race usually)
*Saves: Untyped, Resistance (common), Circumstance (DM granted), Dodge (Reflex only, unimportant), Morale (rare and generally not permenant)
*Initiative: Untyped, Enhancement, Circumstance (DM granted)
*Skills: Untyped, Competence (common), Circumstance (DM granted)
 
Look at that, I cut out a lot like luck, sacred, and stuff like that, and it's not very stackable at all.  The one with the most, AC, can't usually be combined effectively (as you either have heavy armor and low Dex, or high Dex and light armor) and need a lot behind it.  For permenant use you basically have armor, shield, natural, dodge, and deflection, and dodge is kind of rare.  More importantly I think this one is a lot closer to its source, which means minimal re-learning.
 
I don't hate the rules, but they seem to go out of their way to be annoying.  Also with this method I think it's easier to use this rule both as part of a three-part rule, and as a stand alone rule.  Things would be easier to convert, with rare types being converted to the most likely common type (enhancement usually, when applicable).

There's my 2 gp. -- [[User:Eiji-kun|Eiji-kun]] 02:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

::These also look like a nice set of bonuses to go with in total.  To be honest, Circumstance shouldn't be in there as a 'type' as much as there should just be an explanation that rule 0 allows giving bonuses and penalties when needed.  But then, there are cases where it is always obvious one should have a bonus granted from the environment alone, but that can be untyped.  --[[User:Havvy|Havvy]] 03:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

== Response to Ratings ==

Luigifan, I get the feeling that you completely misunderstood my work. I defy you to actually ''explain'' how insight bonuses are useful as a ''concept'' first of all. Secondly, I would like you to point out exactly how bonuses become typeless under this system, given that promotion of bonuses to typelessness is neither spelled out by this system nor encouraged. - [[User:MisterSinister|MisterSinister]] ([[User talk:MisterSinister|talk]]) 17:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

:Insight bonuses are bonuses gained as a consequence of precognition, intuition, great guesswork, or some other means to predict what's about to happen before it actually happens, enabling you to determine the most effective way to do whatever it is you're trying to do. This is why it's granted by stuff like [[SRD:True Strike|''true strike'']] and [[SRD:Moment of Prescience|''moment of prescience'']]. Circumstance bonuses are bonuses or penalties due to a situation, and the DM is supposed to be the primary arbiter of when a circumstance bonus or penalty applies. If an ability grants a circumstance bonus or penalty, that misses the point of what a circumstance bonus is supposed to be unless the ability ''itself'' provides the favorable/unfavorable situation. Alchemical bonuses/penalties are bonuses/penalties granted by some sort of chemical substance, but I'll concur that alchemical bonuses are kind of useless, given that there's so little that can grant them. Deflection bonuses are bonuses granted as a consequence of some magical/mystical/supernatural effect literally forcing objects, spells, and other harmful stuff away from you (a deflection penalty means they're attracted to you instead). Racial bonuses/penalties are bonuses/penalties that you have as a consequence of what you are, and trying to make all the races suitably different in playstyle from each other without them is madness. (Without racial bonuses, what's the point of being a nonhuman?) Resistance bonuses are just that - you're exceptionally resistant. Resistance penalties mean your resilience is subpar. Luck bonuses are bonuses from being lucky, sacred bonuses are bonuses from holy power, and profane bonuses are bonuses from unholy power. (Likewise, luck penalties come from being unlucky, and sacred and profane penalties are basically sanctions imposed by holy/unholy powers.) Inherent bonuses... that's woefully misnamed, as what's ''really'' inherent to your being is ''racial'' bonuses. Under your system, a lot of bonuses of these types don't have anything else that they could be classified as.

:Insight, circumstance, luck, sacred, and profane bonuses can be applied to anything, and circumstance bonuses can stack with each other (up to DM-imposed limits; two overlapping instances of the same circumstance shouldn't stack!) Sacred bonuses should only come from good-aligned sources, and profane bonuses should only come from evil-aligned sources. Also, I would personally refuse to allow a sacred modifier and a profane modifier to exist simultaneously on the same entity for ''any'' reason, given that they so utterly oppose each other; they'd cancel each other out instead. Applying a deflection bonus to ''anything'' other than Armor Class or Reflex saves is so utterly moronic and unjustifiable that I can't fathom why a Dungeon Master would even allow it to happen. ('''Maybe''' it can be justified for Will saves, but I'd rather use something else, like insight or resistance, to classify a bonus that "deflects" mental influences.) Competence bonuses can justifiably be applied to saves and save DCs in addition to the other things you listed, as it's perfectly possible to be just that good at resisting unwanted effects or making your effects harder to resist. Racial bonuses should ''only'' be granted by your race, and granting them through anything else - even a class feature - is even ''more'' stupid than deflection bonuses to stuff other than AC and Reflex saves. Resistance bonuses can't be applied to anything other than AC or saving throws - they're ''resistance'' bonuses because they help you ''resist'' things. Like I said, I think alchemical bonuses are stupid, and should probably be reclassified as something else (for instance, a bezoar should grant a resistance bonus, because it helps you resist poison). Inherent bonuses... those are basically just uber-enchantment bonuses, so they can be changed to enhancement or competence. Basically, my problem with this article is the same one Eiji-kun has. --[[User:Luigifan18|Luigifan18]] ([[User talk:Luigifan18|talk]]) 18:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

== Diplomancer Example ==

I saw a good demonstration of a [[Source-Limited Bonuses (3.5e Variant Rule)|similar system]] do this, so I'll try as well. This is a [http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3169152&postcount=7 basic diplomancer], which has a bonus spread as follows by 20:

Charisma: 18 +5 (level boosts) +5 (tome) +4 (class abilities) +6 (cloak)=38 (+14 bonus).

23 (ranks) +14 (Cha) +14 (Motivate Cha) +10 (Voice of the Dragon) +9 (synergy from Bluff, Knowledge (nobility), Sense Motive) +3 (Skill Focus) +2 (Negotiator) +3 (racial) +6 (Beguiling Influence) +4 (skill artistry)= a '''+98''' modifier.

Let's see how this breaks down under my proposed changes.

* Their Charisma score would be 18 + 5 (level-based boosts) + 10 (new LDB) = 33 (+11 bonus)
* 23 ranks doesn't go anywhere
* Synergy bonuses are gone
* All the other bonuses become competence, which means only Voice applies (being the highest)
* Voice is trimmed to +3 (thanks to ToP).

This means the overall bonus would be 23 + 11 + 3 = 37, which is a reduction of '''sixty-two'''. This means that reliable Diplomancy is no longer possible at all, essentially destroying the build. - [[User:MisterSinister|MisterSinister]] ([[User talk:MisterSinister|talk]]) 17:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

:Isn't ToP's bonus rule doing most of that reduction, though? Actually, TBH, I really don't see this rule and ToB being compatible, at least when calculating a skill bonus. It becomes redundant and mostly ineffectual in the face of ToB's much stricter rule. --[[User:DanielDraco|DanielDraco]] ([[User talk:DanielDraco|talk]]) 19:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Disliked	Fluffykittens + and DanielDraco +
Liked	Havvy +
Opposed	Luigifan18 + and Franken Kesey +