Troll Lord Games

It doesn't mention that wearing two rings of protection won't stack with each other, or does it someplace?

AD&D (at least 2e) had "the most beneficial of a pair is used") but I don't recall that as a limit in 1e, offhand, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there.

In any event, I'd probably go with the "only the best."

I believe it is meant to be like it has always been, they don't stack, only the most powerful version gives you its benefit.

I'm going to try allowing everything to stack and see what happens. In my game, PCs can't just go downtown and purchase magic items, so I won't have PCs walking around with two +5 rings of protection plus other protection items and such.

I use no stacky, only the best. Seems to makes sense...

....................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

Dristram wrote:
I'm going to try allowing everything to stack and see what happens. In my game, PCs can't just go downtown and purchase magic items, so I won't have PCs walking around with two +5 rings of protection plus other protection items and such.

I guess you'll have no problems if magic is truly rare and not made by anyone.

Dristram wrote:
It doesn't mention that wearing two rings of protection won't stack with each other, or does it someplace?

Welp. I can't find it anywhere either. The only limit I see is that one can only wear two rings. I imagine that, should common sense prevail, one could stack various unrelated items together; bracers, rings, gauntlets, and the like, but not rings.

Although, hey, if its not implicitly denied, go for broke I say.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Ahh, but Peter, you should know that if something is not explicitly allowed, it is implicitly denied.

They will not stack IMC.
_________________
Never throw rocks at a man with a Vorpal Sword!

serleran wrote:
Ahh, but Peter, you should know that if something is not explicitly allowed, it is implicitly denied.

*snort* Not in the world I live.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

I'd have to agree with most of the others.

I think Peter forgot to take his medication again.
R-
_________________
Rigon o' the Lakelands, Baron of The Castles & Crusades Society
The Book of the Mind

I let them stack.

In fact... I thought that "bonuses of the same type do not stack" is a, dare I say it, 3Eism! For shame, guys!

A magic ring is a powerful item. Two magic rings means you've got two powerful items. If anybody should be so lucky as to have two, I allow them to both work.
_________________
"I despise all weavers of the black arts. Speaking of which, can you pass the gravy?"

----------

"I didn't know there would be this much talking."

Well, in 3E, the bonuses are "named" and have descriptors, but it is not an original idea, as the ring of protection specifically mentions in 2E that wearing two has no effect, other than making one of them useless. The only time they do "stack" is if you have a personal and a radius-affect, in which case you get the personal, but the radius aplies to anyone and anything in the radius.

I've never allowed stacking as per the 2E mentality. I've always thought it was this way with 1E... but that was a pure assumption on my part.

Moriarty the Red
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

I agree with Moriarty and the others who would not let them stack. Not having played much 1e, most of my experience comes from 2e.

R-
_________________
Rigon o' the Lakelands, Baron of The Castles & Crusades Society
The Book of the Mind

I would say that this is one of those "gray areas" in the rules that the CK's can adjudicate based upon how they want their games to work. However, I want to add that seeing this difference compared to the 1st edition of the world's most popular fantasy role playing game should remind everyone that C&C is NOT a copycat of that game, unlike what some other people have attempted as of late.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

I would use common sense. Essentially, ask yourself the question: "is it cheating to allow this?" If the answer is yes, then don't allow it.

Let me explain what I mean by cheating. If a Ring of Pro +1 is 2000 gp and a ring of protection +2 is 8000, it would be cheating to allow someone to buy two +1 rings and have the effects stack. You are getting the same benefit for half cost.

However, if a +1 ring is 2000 and and a +2 ring is 4000, then it would be acceptable for someone to buy two +1 rings and wear both, because it is the same benefit for the same cost.
_________________
Basic Action Games http://www.bashrpg.com

Check us out for free demos and downloads or visit us onFacebook.

That's an interesting point... However, What about someone who is wearing a cloak of protection, bracers of protection, and a ring of protection? Do you guys allow those bonuses to stack? For argument's sake, they are all +2.

Moriarty the Red
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

moriarty777 wrote:
That's an interesting point... However, What about someone who is wearing a cloak of protection, bracers of protection, and a ring of protection? Do you guys allow those bonuses to stack? For argument's sake, they are all +2.

Moriarty the Red

Yes. Because they are all different items.
For the original question, I actually think I would do something a little different.

Say one has two protection rings, Id actually work out something where one ring is the 'base' protection and the other would be used to determine area of effect.

The 'base' ring would be determined randomly, and then the other could be used as a multiplier of 'squares' the area affects.

For example. One has a +3 ring and a +2 ring. Its randomly determined that the +2 ring is the 'base' protection, so that would mean the other would act as a multiplier. Each square is 5' or so generally. So the +3 would mean that the +2 protection operates in a 3 sqare radius or 15'.

Its a thought, anyhow.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

My assumption is that they would stack. This could be abused, of course, but consider:

1. It's up to the DM how many of these things are available. They are precious resources, and if not sprinkled liberally about the landscape will be desired by many PC's.

2. It may be a violation of some sort of "advantages math" to stack them, however by wearing two rings you effectively deny yourself the abilities gained by wearing another ring, so it's a trade-off.

3. It's magic! It's shiney fun! It's frowny-bad-fun to not have them stack.
Cheers,

Christopher

Okay, as a long time AD&D gamer, I can field this one.

Originally they did not stack. However, C&C doesn't state that rule.

Originally rings of protection could be used with non-magic armor with full efect, but when used with magic armor, you only gained a saving throw bonus and didn't get the ac bonus. They always worked with bracers, cloaks, etc. and can be found in numerous modules being used in this manner. Shields were considered armor for this rule, but helmets were not since they didn't affect ac.

Now that C&C "left the door open" so to speak, here's what I'm doing in my campaign. I don't allow stacking of pluses, but I now allow full effect when used with magic armor, helmets and shields. So far, the fighters are thrilled and it hasn't created a problem.

One of the methods I use to keep it from becomming a problem is only allowing half the max level of a dungeon as the total number of magic items per character in each dungeon, rounding down. By limiting the number of magic items each character can start an adventure with each session, fighters tend to chose weapons or other items over rings of protection.

This also puts characters roughly on par with the number of magic items many pre-gens were listed with in classic modules.

Brian Miller
_________________
"The adventure continues"

I'd just like to say that this is a great discussion fellows. This thread alone has made me think a great deal on how work certain items in my games.

*claps* Just saying.

...........................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

catenwolde wrote:
2. It may be a violation of some sort of "advantages math" to stack them, however by wearing two rings you effectively deny yourself the abilities gained by wearing another ring, so it's a trade-off.

That's my thought on it.

Rings of protection are typically desired by the "miscellaneous" characters... ie, monks (especially, as they have few items that help AC and can't use a whole lot of stuff anyway) and rogues who've got limited armor capacity. Wizards make use of the more powerful rings, like spell turning or the obvious wizardry (or spell storing rings.)

Also, if one uses the rules for item saves as should be enforced (that is, anytime the character is subjected to an effect, his items are subjected, and not the SRD d20 way which is bunk) then allowing the items to stack is not so much a big deal, really, especially as the game progresses to higher levels and characters start wanting to "trade up" in terms of utility.

Finally, remember the assumed max AC is 30, so if you're going to let characters stack RoP, they might end up with a very high AC making them very hard to hurt (at least, until the higher levels when creatures say "oh yeah! Smack! Smack! Smack! Take that you tumbelweed!") but this is easily countered by a lot of things, like the aforementioned item saves, and "touch effects" and whatnot.

Oh, and lastly, I would not allow multiple RoP to stack for saves, as it only takes two mildly powerful ones to give the character the effective benefit of Prime in every stat. That, to me, would be an artifact ability... and not something your typical 13th level wizard could manufacture.

So, what are my suggestions?

Stack AC, but not saves bonuses. Use item saves.

Play as you want.

serleran wrote:
Finally, remember the assumed max AC is 30,

Technically I agree, but not so with dragons (red dragon can have a 32ac according to M&T).

Brian Miller
_________________
"The adventure continues"

Yeah, well, dragons are the exceptions that define every rule, too.

serleran wrote:
Yeah, well, dragons are the exceptions that define every rule, too.

That's the beauty of C&C...rules aren't too binding...and dragon's are deadly. 8)

Brian Miller
_________________
"The adventure continues"

does anything stack as written in the rules? in D&D 3x for example you either get AC from your armor or from bracers but not both. But I haven't seen it in the C&C rules wether things stack or not.

thanks,

Rob

As far as I know, there are no rules about what stacks or not. It's a CK call. For me, right now, anything that says it gives a +# armor bonus, will not stack with armor. But if it says +# to armor class, it would.

thanks for that info Dristram and it makes sense because AC is the sum of armor bonus, dodging, parrying, cover and so on.