TOPIC: Re: Girdle for Trade

Alas there is only 1 slot for the amulet and there are 2 slots for Rings so we would need to add a rule and explain that while there are 2 slots, some things don't stack.<br /><br />Not saying we shouldn't but it is a decision that needs to be made none-the-less.

<br />And as for bracers stacking - I would just say that clearly they are bracers of natural armor or whatever qualifies them as stackable with rings or what not.<br />

<br /><br />The thing is, there are no 'bracers of natural armor' in the game. Sure you can make your own, but it seems like TD has gone out of its way to mirror classic dnd items. We don't see toerings of protection after all. In the game's magical inventory, there are bracers of armor (which provide armor bonus) and there are amulets of natural armor (which provide natural armor bonus). Rings of protection are deflection. This isn't to say you can't make up whatever you want. The ring of protection can add a morale bonus to AC if you found a dm twinkie enough to auth it. The reasoning being, my shiny ring makes me so happy that all of a sudden I dodge attacks better.<br /><br />That sorta of diddily crap aside, the easiest way to run things is just assume that you can have 1 of everything and it works after applying the slot rules. So no identical two items will both function, even if there is an extra slot for them. I don't think we really want to see crap like double evasion, double regeneration or god knows what else anyway.

Well said - I think.

<br />I don't think we really want to see crap like double evasion, double regeneration or god knows what else anyway.<br />

<br /><br />Henwy, but I would ask you... are two Rings of Protection or two Rings of Evasions really that powerful?  Or even two Rings of Regeneration?  I'd contend that they would have little impact on the game.  <br /><br />As you mentioned, even getting hit is a rare occurance for someone with an uber collection.  And rolling for trap damage saves really doesn't happen often.  The dual Rings of Regeneration is probably the most powerful set (IMHO) and even that won't somehow ward off Death when worn.

<br />Henwy, but I would ask you... are two Rings of Protection or two Rings of Evasions really that powerful?  Or even two Rings of Regeneration?  I'd contend that they would have little impact on the game.  <br /><br />As you mentioned, even getting hit is a rare occurance for someone with an uber collection.  And rolling for trap damage saves really doesn't happen often.  The dual Rings of Regeneration is probably the most powerful set (IMHO) and even that won't somehow ward off Death when worn.<br />

<br /><br />It has nothing to do with things becoming too powerful. It's simply the easiest way to handle things, ecspecially if more rings are introduced to not have effects that can stack. Why even bother opening the door to those annoying fiddling possibilties, ecspecially when it accounts for such a tiny, truly miniscule, population? Just tell DMs, one of each item works and you have things fixed. They don't have to worry about the offcase about what happens if someone is wearing two rings of evasion plus a +2 cloak or something.

Ok, well at least we agree on this not being a power issue.   :cool:<br /><br />But I see it the other way.  I think by not allowing stacking you are opening the door for all sorts of confusion if new items come out that are in the "gray area".  For example, can a Ring of Resistance +1 stack with a Cloak of Resistance +1?  Or can a Ring of <whatever> which gives +1 to AC stack with a ring of protection?  Or can a +2 Ring stack with a +1 Ring?  Or stacking two rings that prevent damage but from different sources or under different conditions?  Or any other of the hundreds of possible stacking conflicts that might come down the pipeline...<br /><br />If we want simple, Stacking is Simple.  Dealing with two Rings of Evasion and a +2 Cloak is easier than explaining the logic behind and enforcing why somethings stack and others don't.  Having said that, we might still want to prevent stacking for completely different reasons (e.g. more closely resembles 3.5 rules, etc.)<br /><br />But in the end, its Jeff's call.  We are here but to present the opinions.  =)

I say you allow the stacking as long as the tokens have different names.  So you could wear a cloak of resistance +1 and a ring of resistance +1, but not two rings of resistance +1 (even though it would have the same effect).  It's kinda like the "Rule of the Cosmos" in card games--you can't have multiples of the same card in play at once. 

I would say a Ring of Protection and a "Ring of Armor" are two different things that yield a + to AC and since two rings can be worn they are allowed to both give the + as they don't really stack in the sense that they are identical.  This to me is way cooler from a gaming standpoint than having multiple same items working together.  So if like items were banned we would be opening up so many more token possibilities including token items that do not count towards SLOT count.  (just think about that for a moment.)<br /><br />I guess it comes down to the very definition of Stacking - is it defined as exactly alike items piling on a cumlative bonus to one trait?  Or does stacking apply to different items like +1 Plate a +1 Ring an Amulet and Bracers as working together to provide better AC?  <br /><br />Page 171 of 3.5 Players Handbook is very clear about spells not adding twice or more bonuses, and this is called stacking (same spell does not equal double effect), but it says that if spell expiration were different or if one spell were cancelled - the other would remain in play - so I can see where if a hand were lost...  <br /><br />Also The DMG as Henwy posted is clear...it just comes down to what Douglas said - it is afterall what Jeff wants.

Gentlemen,<br />Just wanted to let you know I am paying attention to this thread and I will ensure there is a ruling on this when we update the token guide with the next round of tokens.  <br /><br />Personally my opinion would be to keep it as simple as possible and just say that two of any identical items can not be worn for additional bonuses, and even though other combinations seem to be odd such as a ring of armor and protection, since they are both rings and each character is allowed two, it would be allowed.<br /><br />While Henwy is right that classically, the ring of armor is not "natural", or at least not in the DM guide.  I am essentially making the assumption that Jeff was not going to be picky if a Wizard wore it without other armor.  I will clarify, however and we will see what he says.  Again, I am inclined to say it is "Natural" armor so we don't have to carry around yet another exception in the books for some to remember and others to forget.<br /><br />It may be inevitable that we become book bound one day, in terms of rules, but I will try and fight it as long as possible.  The Cheat sheet I create for the DMs is complex enough, I would really hate to take away from the mood and have a DM consulting a rule book in all but the rarest of occasions, if ever.<br /><br />Dave<br />

Dave,<br /><br />I don't want to beat a dead horse (Ok, this is the last time, I promise)  =) but if you want to keep things as simple as possible, stacking is the simplest approach.  For example, if we introduce a new rule that identical tokens don't stack, what about a Ring of Protection +1 and Ring of Protection +2 (when and if one is created)?  They are not identical so they should stack?  But not two +1s?  And Ring of Armor vs Ring of Protection?  In the future, tokens will be introduced into circulation that will cause questions about what stacks with what.  If you have a rule that something don't stack, this will create complexity.<br /><br />I don't think you want to create a compatibility matrix about what works with what because one is natural and one is deflection.  Bleh!<br /><br />-Douglas<br />

They are not the same plusses, but they have the same "name" - Ring of Protection.  I think that part would be clear enough, so no stacking, only the +2 would count.

A ring of protection and a ring of protection are identical...the magic of the stronger one over-rides the lessor...so unless the hand that the +2 ring is on is torn off...the +1 is latent.<br /><br />I see the logic that stacking is the simple solution with fewest rules in play - but again I would point out...that taking "same name" stacking out of the game is not difficult, and in fact it promotes more creative tokens that can stack and (again I beat my horse) wouldn't it be COOL if someday some items are created that do not count towards a SLOT count...ooooo the possibilities!<br /><br />