Talk:Source-Limited Bonuses (3.5e Variant Rule)

Comments

How is [Edit]Character Level Dependent[/Edit] this distinct from Base Bonus (which seem character level derived) and Class Feature or Feat bonuses (which, even if they scaled with character level instead of something else would already be included with the Class Feature or Feat bits)? I'm not seeing it, and think a bit of explanation would be helpful.

Also, racial bonuses do not make an appearance. Are they intended to be covered by Misc (and so not stack with item, synergy, whatever bonuses)? - Tarkisflux ^Talk 04:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

How is...what distinct from Base Bonus, Class Feature, and Feat?

I forgot about racial bonuses. I'll probably add them below Feat soon, unless I (or someone else who feels like saying so) think of a reason they should not get their own category. For now, I'll leave a little more time for comments, as this is a first draft. --DanielDraco (talk) 04:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. I meant "Character Level Dependent" bonuses, since they seem like they'd already be covered by other categories. I've edited them in above for clarity. Sorry about that, header change midway through and then a failure to correct body text :-( - Tarkisflux ^Talk 04:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

There are indeed going to be instances of overlap. That's intended, and the reason for the hierarchical structure. Is that not clear? How can I make it clearer? --DanielDraco (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm just not sure when you would ever have one of the Char Level Dependent ones that wasn't also one of the others. Is the intent for you to get two feat/class bonuses, as long as one of them scales with Char Level and one is static? - Tarkisflux ^Talk 04:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The logic is that Character Level Dependent bonuses should absolutely not stack with each other, regardless of source (e.g, no stacking +1/level from a feat with +1/level from your class). They are thus separated out as a distinct category. It's a failsafe against one particularly disastrous situation where my theory might not hold.

Although, now on further thought, I think I should change it to Level Dependent -- be it class or character level. It gimps multiclassed characters who wish to stack two scaling bonuses from two different classes which are both determined by class level, but it also means that a single-class character can't stack a bonus scaled to class level 20 with a bonus scaled to character level 20. --DanielDraco (talk) 05:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I see what you're worried about. Would it be easier to just say that you can only have 1 scaling bonus from all of the bonus types, and that other scaling bonuses are capped at some number (like +3), rather than have it as a separate thing on its own? - Tarkisflux ^Talk 05:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Allowing any number of capped scaling bonuses is equivalent to allowing any number of sufficiently small static bonuses; both defeat the purpose of the rule, which is to prevent behemoth bonuses built from smaller parts. --DanielDraco (talk) 05:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not allowing any number of capped bonuses, I'm allowing one fewer than you have here (so 5) because I don't have a separate category for "anything scaling" since only 1 of allowed ones can scale, and the rest get capped if they aren't static. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 05:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That would be a viable way to go about it, but it does add a little more complication. I think this rule is already just barely below the threshold of complication that would make people unlikely to bother with it. Not because it's difficult to go down the hierarchy and place a bonus in a category, but because it's difficult to do so for every single bonus that you have. As written, it's a relatively manageable scheme and easy enough to break down on a character sheet, but adding that extra thing to think about would, I think, make it a little too much of a pain. --DanielDraco (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Armour and shield bonuses don't stack

By a very literal reading of this material, both wearing armour and carrying a shield don't appear to stack their bonuses to AC. Is this intentional? - MisterSinister (talk) 06:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

No it is not. I'll remedy that. --DanielDraco (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Diplomancer Example

I looked up a basic diplomancer build, complete with dumpster-diving and classes that are useless if not for giving an eensy bit more bonus, and figured out how well this variant would fix the problems that make such a build possible.

• Standard diplomancer Charisma: 18 +5 (level boosts) +5 (tome) +4 (class abilities) +6 (cloak) = 38 (+14 bonus).
• Standard diplomancer Diplomacy: 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)= +98.
• Source-Limited diplomancer Charisma: 18 +5 (level boosts) +4 (class abilities [both are technically "increases", not bonuses]) +6 (cloak) = 33 (+11 bonus).
• Source-Limited diplomancer Diplomacy: 23 (ranks) +11 (Cha) +11 (Motivate Cha) +10 (Voice of the Dragon) +3 (synergy) +3 (Skill Focus) +3 (racial) = +64.

At level 20, it eliminates 34 points of bonus from this build. The modifier is of course still enormous, but not nearly as much as before. So cheese is still possible, but is handicapped to a respectable degree. --DanielDraco (talk) 09:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)