New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

[JLXC]

I am thinking of adding the following limitation to my game.

 

Does not stack with other resistant Defense (-1/2) for spells and abilities that add to defense such as Force Field or Armor (through a spell or magic) and such. Essentially trying to get around the Everything stacks rules and so spellcasters could have a nice Force Field of (8/8) then I don't have to worry about it stacking with Combat Luck and the Def 2 Armor they are wearing for example. Only the highest total would be active.

 

What do you all think?

 

Let me say that I realize -1/2 might seem high but I think it is a pretty serious liability and that other forms of Armor and Combat Reflexes and Damage Resistance still stack, this is mostly a limitation on magic and magic effects.

[SleepyDrug]

Sounds good to me....

 

does this mean the spell is not usable if the rest of the character's defenses exceed the spell's def?

 

or does it mean the spell's def is counted first and then everything else?

[JLXC]

Originally posted by SleepyDrug

Sounds good to me....

 

does this mean the spell is not usable if the rest of the character's defenses exceed the spell's def?

 

or does it mean the spell's def is counted first and then everything else?

 

What it would mean is that if the characters regular defense because of Armor and Combat Luck and /or Damage Resistance is greater than the defense of the spell, the spell would have no further effect, though I am sure that having a magic FF going would help against certain special effects or NND's even if it did not provide additional Defense if you know what I mean.

 

For example:

 

MageGuy has Leather Armor Def 2. He casts a FF (5/5) with the Does not Stack limitaiton. He would only add the 5/5 to his defenses ignoring the lesser Leather bonus.

 

MageGuy casts a FF / Armor spell (whatever) of 5/5 on a Big Troll. The troll has Damage Resistance 4/4 and Armor of 5/5. The spell would not add to the trolls defense at all. Still the troll does have a magic FF running which could be useful itself.

[James Gillen]

No, the -1/2 Limitation sounds right to me. I vaguely recall doing something similar for my D&D conversion game.

 

JG

[Markdoc]

The limitation sounds about right to me - it is a pretty significant decrease in power.

 

Two things to think about:

 

Would you make it compulsory on all magic protection spells? If it wasn't compulsory, I must admit, if I was a mage, I wouldn't take it.

 

Secondly, does it apply to all magical protections? By that, I mean, if the rogue finds a magic ring that adds +3 DEF, would it also have the same limit, or would he be able to add it to his leather armour?

 

cheers, Mark

[JLXC]

Well thanks all and of course that is the tricky part Markdoc.

 

All spells that give FF or Armor will have it as a required. Items and such will have to go case by case.

 

I'm just making a game mechanic to avoid a

 

Combat Luck, Leather Armored, Mage with a FF, and a ring of protection of Armor to give someone 13+ resistant Def without many points involved.

 

Really it will allow for greater flexibility in spells though as if you make a FF (10,10) the GM only has to consider the implications of (10,10) not 10+a gazillion other things.

[James Gillen]

It's worth noting that in the D20 editions of D&D they specifically detail separate categories of bonuses so that they don't stack; e.g. an 'armor' bonus doesn't stack with better armor, but deflection/dodge bonuses are cumulative, etc.

 

JG

[Vondy]

I would go with -1/4, but -1/2 isn't so egrarious as to cause any real concern.

 

In my supers game I have a -0 does not stack for anything built with "real armor."

[Blue Jogger]

In a fantasy game that I'm working on, I went the other direction and made Stackable a +1 Advantage. A spell with Stackable must state what it stacks with. Stackable (in my game) cannot boost a defense more than 10.

[Markdoc]

Like von D-Man, in my game nothing stacks with real armour - or indeed with anything of the same kind. So a forcefield ring would stack with magical armour, but not with a necklace or a spell that gave force field.

 

And because I'm cruel, that was just a -0 that affected everybody and everything in the game.

 

I agree totally - stackable defences are just too unbalancing at heroic levels.

 

cheers, Mark

[Legendsmiths]

In our setting, part of the Real Armor limitation is the "stacking" limitation (essential at no increase to Real Armor.

 

Spells cannot confer Armor, although items can, and are subject to the same stacking rules.

 

Force Fields can stack with armor, as it is a different form of protection. But force fields cannot stack with other force fields.

 

Combat Luck also does not stack with armor (essentially use the higher of the two).

 

There are other aspects to the magic system that make defensive magics balanced and no cheaper than any other power (unlike the default costs). After over a year of playtesting, this works very well and we do not see rediculous levels of DEF.

[Knightmare]

I usually don't allow characters to stack defense powers with equipment they didn't pay for with points. The wizard could have a 5/5 FF and combat luck that would stack but the two would not stack with the banded breastplate he purchased in town. Anyway its still nice to have that breastplate when END is low or if one gets caught by suprize.

The whole thing would be balanced with campaign limits on Defence. If they want to have several FF's from different sources, thats fine but stay under the campaign limit.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by JLXC

Well thanks all and of course that is the tricky part Markdoc.

 

All spells that give FF or Armor will have it as a required. Items and such will have to go case by case.

 

I'm just making a game mechanic to avoid a

 

Combat Luck, Leather Armored, Mage with a FF, and a ring of protection of Armor to give someone 13+ resistant Def without many points involved.

 

I think this is beating around the bush. I think you should just tell your players what maximum defense they can have. And tell them not to have that cap, would unbalance the game.

 

Really it will allow for greater flexibility in spells though as if you make a FF (10,10) the GM only has to consider the implications of (10,10) not 10+a gazillion other things.

 

I would do what I said as above. I think an interesting insight I have gotten from writing both fantasy adventures, and short fiction, is that gameplay simply can't be the same as a fiction story. It just doesn't work.

 

If you try to make a consistent magic system, and rationalize your disadvantages because of the way magic works, you end up like Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, in your rationale.

 

GM: "Magic just doesnt work with armor."

Player: "Why not?"

GM: "Ummmmmmmm, spell-casting requires great physical freedom for the subtle gestures needed, armor prevents that."

Player: "So can I carry a backpack?"

 

This puts us in with D&D.

 

This is interesting though. I think the thing to do is develop a list of rational alternatives to justify the no stack rule:

• 
  1.Religious Limitation: Wizards take a vow not to wear armor. It's against style quotient. J/K. Maybe because it's a indication of a lack of faith in magic. And a kind of human faith is required to cast magic.
  2. Freedom Limitation: As described in the quote, directly above this list.
  3. Magic Metal Limitation: Magic doesn't work with large amounts of metal.
  4. ...Role Limitation:Wizards must take combat luck, they cannot have any other protection, because of their societal role. Social factors do influence human behavior, btw.
  5. Form Limitation: Platonic Philosophy and Plato has the theory of "forms." Forms are the "ideal," or perfect structure, of a given object. So there is an ideal form (in heaven?) of the ideal chair. Only as a chair conforms, in some way, to the form of the ideal chair, can an object be called a chair.
   
  The same with wizards, only as they conform to the ideal image (form) of the ideal wizard, (in heaven?) can a wizard be called a wizard. This includes dress, apparatus (staff, wand, etc.), incantations, gestures, etc.
   
  I know it's specious, but that's Plato.
  6. And the most pandering...Genre (Satisfaction) Limitation: It simply ruins the genre for wizards to have armor and forcefields, thus it ruins it for other player's and their satisfaction levels.
  

 

Personally, I like the first limitation. According to critics, it's an underlying rationale behind much of Tolkein's work. I'm sure GM's can come up with many more, though.

[Markdoc]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

>>> I think this is beating around the bush. I think you should just tell your players what maximum defense they can have. And tell them not to have that cap, would unbalance the game.<<<

 

Well, every GM has their preference and some do use caps, but we have tried this and it has not been conducive to good play for several reasons.

 

1. It's arbitrary - and a lot of players don't like that. They especially don't like it if the NPCs are not subject to the same cap, which tends to tie the GM's hands a bit.

2. It tends - like all caps - to lead to a rush to the top. So your heavy armoured fighter has DEF10, your wizard has DEF10 and your rogue has DEF10. Balanced, but not so much fun.

3. What's a suitable cap in the first 6 months of the game when the opponents are city guards, thieves and orcs doesn't fly so well in the second year of the game, when the opponents are Demons and wizards. That means either laying out a progression in cap based on character points in advance (possible, but more work, and it tends to distort character balance a bit) or adjusting it as you go - a fine art and also even more conducive to a "gamey" feel.

 

None of this discussion is saying use such limits instead of social factors - it's in addition to social factors. Saying "Wizards don't wear armour, because it's considered a sign of shoddy workmanship in their spells" is fine. It does nothing to stop the Rogue or the fighter who wants to combine combat luck with plate armour and a ring of protection, though. In general it's a poor GM who can't get some licks in on the players when they are not tooled up to take it. But often they addition will be tooled up and this discussion is about how to keep that from getting out of hand - without having to be heavy-handed.

 

cheers, Mark

[Galadorn]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

3. What's a suitable cap in the first 6 months of the game when the opponents are city guards, thieves and orcs doesn't fly so well in the second year of the game, when the opponents are Demons and wizards. That means either laying out a progression in cap based on character points in advance (possible, but more work, and it tends to distort character balance a bit) or adjusting it as you go - a fine art and also even more conducive to a "gamey" feel.[/b]

 

Progression Cap: Defenses equal total character points/15. Sounds fine to me. You may think that this thread is about how not to make a cap without being heavy-handed.

 

I think this thread is about what the title says: "Mew Limitation: Does Not Stack. GMs Please Look." I don't see any comment about perceptual "heavy-handedness" in this thread at all. And I don't think a cap is heavy-handed at all. I would say it's rather: "Game Balancing."

 

Some people can handle rules and discipline. Some people rebel against both.

[James Gillen]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

It depends on whether you want to make it the kind of "progressive" game where the opponents are scads more powerful over time than when the PCs started. These considerations wouldn't apply to a "low-fantasy" game. If you're in a High Fantasy game, either the Limitation shouldn't be used in the first place, or you give the PCs defenses that aren't entirely dependent on stacking DEF- amulets of Missile Deflection or DCV, for example.

 

JG

[JLXC]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

Thanks all for the great ideas and talk here. I have decided to use this new limitation in my games. There is just too much reason to in my mind. Thanks again for reviewing it for me!

 

[Galadorn]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

It depends on whether you want to make it the kind of "progressive" game where the opponents are scads more powerful over time than when the PCs started. These considerations wouldn't apply to a "low-fantasy" game. If you're in a High Fantasy game' date=' either the Limitation shouldn't be used in the first place, or you give the PCs defenses that aren't entirely dependent on stacking DEF- amulets of Missile Deflection or DCV, for example.[/quote']

 

Well I think there are a couple considerations with having defense caps:

• 
  1. Magic System Justification: How can you justify it in a consistent magic system, that doesn't present a cartoonish rationale?
  2. Game System Justification: Using average defenses, and average DCs, how can a GM justify a cap rule that doesn't provide a "gamey" rationale?

 

Tough task IMB.

[Galadorn]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

Thanks all for the great ideas and talk here. I have decided to use this new limitation in my games. There is just too much reason to in my mind. Thanks again for reviewing it for me!

 

 

You're welcome.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

Well I think there are a couple considerations with having defense caps:

 

1. Magic System Justification: How can you justify it in a consistent magic system, that doesn't present a cartoonish rationale?

2. Game System Justification: Using average defenses, and average DCs, how can a GM justify a cap rule that doesn't provide a "gamey" rationale?

I agree. I hate caps. I think guidelines are important, but if you need a "cap" it should come out in the rules you create. With the magic system we've had in place for the past year or so we have not seen rDEF greater than 12, and that was only for 1 combat in a 160pt game. Usually deal with the standard range of 0-8.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

I take a different approach. Instead of saying that defenses don't stack or that there's a cap on DEF. I just say that Force Field spells don't exist. You can have one level of combat luck and any suit of armor you can find/make/buy/steal. Knights in armor are well-protected in combat. Wizards in robes aren't, but they are useful for many other things.

 

OK, yes, you can have a FF spell, but it must be bought with severe increased END or Charges (non-continuing.)

[ghost-angel]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

I've never like the anti stacking rules, I personally think they're extremely stupid.

 

A mage in armor, with a force field up .. why wouldn't they stack? The arrow has to pass through both to hurt him? Does it somehow mysteriously bypass the armor if the force field is the higher defense?

 

I think logic and sepcial effects should prevent stacking, you can't wear two breast plates for example.

 

If I were having a problem with the defenses getting out of hand in my game I would ask the players nicely to please refrain from doing such things as wearing plate armour and tossing up the high defense force wall spell with the stone skin spell. Simply for dramatic sake, or story. If they didn't comply I'd stomp them so far into the ground they'd pop out the other side.

 

At some point players and GMs alike need to step back, abandon what "is possible with in the scope of the rules" and go with what would make the better story/game/scene/daramtic sense. Forcing them into this role with arbitrary restrictions will only tick them off and make cause for arguements.

 

If you get that one player who insists on maxing the defenses every single time start hitting him with penetrating or exotic attacks. Mr PD isn't going to be protecting from Mr Psion's Ego Blast no matter how many force wall spells he's got up.

 

From my experience and point of view there are many more in game ways to work around this issue than doing something like "Sorry, it just doesn't work because I said so."

[Blue Jogger]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

Where it becomes problematic is when throwing up one simple 2PD/2ED Force Field, 0 END, Persistant is extremely effective when combined with armor. Adding 2 DEF of real armor would make the armor weigh twice as much, but a simple 8 active point spell has negated the need for half that weight and last basically forever.

 

If you think about it, plate mail armor is stupid. Who in their right mind would wear 70kgs (154 pounds!) of armor if they could get the same protection with a minor spell and wearing armor that is half as heavy?

[Earen]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

Where it becomes problematic is when throwing up one simple 2PD/2ED Force Field' date=' 0 END, Persistant is extremely effective when combined with armor.[/quote']

 

... which is one of the reasons why I don't allow spells that don't require END at least to activate and typically to maintain. I understand the desire for a "does not stack" limitation and it is one way to balance armor and armor-like spells if it is getting out of hand ... but I think it's not the best way.

[Galadorn]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

I take a different approach. Instead of saying that defenses don't stack or that there's a cap on DEF. I just say that Force Field spells don't exist. You can have one level of combat luck and any suit of armor you can find/make/buy/steal. Knights in armor are well-protected in combat. Wizards in robes aren't' date=' but they are useful for many other things.[/quote']

 

Just to illustrate how difficult this issue is...I will buy armor as a spell instead, special effect: force field.

 

OK, yes, you can have a FF spell, but it must be bought with severe increased END or Charges (non-continuing.)

 

Well, I think there must be a solution. But pat rules like this don't address the issue. I have no problem with saying a certain level of defense, isn't available to players. Was there armor better the plate armor in the middle ages? Nope. The high defenses simply aren't available rule, is sounding pretty good and justifiable right now...