User talk:Luigifan18/Helm of Stacking (3.5e Equipment)
Ratings[edit]
|
Ganteka Future opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4. |
|---|---|
| Ugh, as others have mentioned, there are severe problems with game balance and core rules of the system that have not been addressed since the article's creation. This exists only to break rules and min-max and I'm not sure why. It encourages characters to cheese the system. Oppose. |
|
|
Leziad opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4. |
|---|---|
| I think the question I have is: Why?
There is no reason I see why attacking stacking should be done or attempted. It like even with the most basic applications on it weakest variant it borked. I mean that Belt from miniature handbook(?) with a +6 enhancement item on your main stat. GG EZ. |
|
|
Sulacu opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4. |
|---|---|
| If you have a game built around a set of basic and immutable core rules, then having an object within it that can break such a rule is just not good for the game in general. At most, you might get away with bending the rules a little, but outright breaking them is a no-no.
Aside from that, there is the potential value to consider. If you have an item that can give you a +10 deflection bonus (which is epic, and would be worth 2 million gp in core), then your item must be priced in such a way that it compensates for the added value you can get out of it. Even if you take only 50% of the added value you're creating, just the lesser helm would have to cost around 800k. I don't even want to consider where the other two helms stand. The most damning thing about this item, though, is that its effects are entirely 'meta'. It has no in-game utility of any kind and only exists to give you bigger numbers. Its only worth is as a horribly broken min-maxing aid. |
Um... bending the stacking rules, but not breaking them, is the whole point of this item. That’s why it only allows two, three, or four stacks instead of an infinite number of them. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2017 (MST)
- Straight up addition of same-type bonuses is definitely breaking the game rules. Even if you impose a limit to how often you can add such numbers together, that's still a breach of core. Bending the rules would be like 'oh, you have a +5 deflection bonus and another +5 deflection bonus, perhaps added together they'll allow you to achieve a +6 deflection bonus'. That I could live with, especially since you're putting a good amount of resources into it. Of course that doesn't do away with my main complaint, that this item has nothing to do with the actual game you're playing: 'Hey look, that guy's wielding a heavy axe. He must be a barbarian from the North'. 'Look at that fancy armor. He must be one of the king's royal guards.' 'What's that weird helmet do? Uuhm.. it, uh... makes unstackable modifiers stack... what's modifiers, precious? What's modifiers eh?'
- I guess what I'm saying is, something like this has no business being an item, regardless of balance issues or lack thereof. There's a few absolute core mechanics that I can think of: the mechanics of the d20 roll, modifiers, stacking modifiers, rounding fractions, and multiplication. And if you want to mess with them so badly then make it a transformational variant rule, and not an item. --Sulacu (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2017 (MST)
|
|
Eiji-kun opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4. |
|---|---|
| Sorry Luigi, but it seems clear that WHY same bonuses are designed to usually not stack has escaped you. The core concept behind the item, as is, is pretty broken and you've done yourself no favors in the way you've implemented it. Messing with the core components of the game is a bad idea. If your game really is concerned about the stacking thing, it would be far easier to pass a houserule that all bonuses are untyped, or dodge, or any of the stacking bonuses that exist. And I would be surprised if any DM actually permitted such. |
But I don't want them to stack forever. That's bad. I only want to allow a few stacks. --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2017 (MST)
- Yeah, it's not forever, it's just +64 Str, +8 Dex, +32 Con, and +28 natural armor! Bite of the Werebear x4 baby!
- You're avoiding it Luigi, I'm not letting this slide. Divine Grace and Bite of the X spells break this wide open, among others. Those aren't made up numbers. Address it and recognize this doesn't work. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 07:05, 20 December 2017 (MST)
Attacking Stacking[edit]
Oh dear, this is gonna be hard to balance. I'd comment more, but... I actually cannot understand how it's supposed to work. How I think it probably should work is "You can stack any bonuses up to a maximum of +X" where X is how you keep it from going insane because you applied +2 enhancement to Whatever x9999 times.
What exactly is it doing? -- Eiji-kun (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2017 (MST)
Ok, others explained it for me that it is "If you could benefit from BUFF, then you can benefit from BUFF x2... or x3/x4 for the other versions. Which I have to say is the wrong way to go about it since buffs generally are built with the idea that they don't stack and thus some buffs (cough cough Divine Agility cough cough Bite of the Anything) are quite high.
I do not think a +40 Dex is appropriate no matter how great your Greater Helm is, and it is clearly a far cry from x4 Grace for a "mere" +8 Dex. Nevermind if you go dumpster diving for xN bonuses of all different types. This was off the top of my head. It can get much much worse.
Yes, you would be way way better off fixing the maximum bonus you can achieve from any sources. That way even if you dumper dive for a dozen and one different types, or stack all the same type, you know you never are going to exceed 2, 4, 6, whatever number you set it at and then you can adjust prices accordingly because you know the theoretical limit. At the moment, a price (and balance) is impossible because there is no theoretical limit to the bonuses you can find. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (MST)
- Huh? Where did you get it explained to you? Though the explanation you received is pretty much correct.
- Also, the current rules already encourage dumpster diving for bonuses of different types, because generally speaking, only bonuses of the same type are prevented from stacking. The purpose of the helm of stacking is to ease up restrictions on stacking, so you can, for instance, combine a temporary buff with an equipment-based one. But not too much, as the stacking rules exist largely to prevent players from endlessly buffing themselves. The greater helm only allows stacks of four for a reason — infinite stacks would just be insane. --Luigifan18 (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2017 (MST)
- But that's not what you've done. Instead of replacing a dozen types with a single stacking type (the sort of thing a variant rule may do), you instead have that AND aforementioned dumpster diving. You've only added to the problem, not replaced it or made it better.
- Yes, at the cost of a magic item slot (wearing this means you can't be wearing another helmet or binding any soulmelds to your crown chakra) and, because it's limited, it only eases restrictions. You still need to be tactical about applying buffs instead of mindlessly piling things on. Which was the point, really — to make it so, say, casting true strike as a character who already gets an insight bonus to attack rolls wouldn't be redundant, or allowing a drow to improve their innate spell resistance, or letting a vampire enhance their fast healing... essentially, letting characters get better at things they already have special boons for, without allowing things to go hilariously overboard. (Also, it is in part yet another in my long line of attempts to make it actually possible to succeed on Spellcraft checks for epic spells without being level 200 or something like that.) --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2017 (MST)
- Placed my rating since, well, as above I don't think you're getting the point. That said I did have one other thing to add.
- "...without allowing things to go hilariously overboard."'
