Troll Lord Games

serleran wrote:
Need to vent after a day of "customer support."

*chuckles* Thats what Livejournal's are for, not fanbase forums.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Where's that in the rules?

I had a Livejournal once, I think, something like 6 years ago I believe. No one ever saw it. Guess that makes it perfect for dishing out the hate.

See you.

I perhaps shouldn't have singled out your response specifically serleran...

You certainly do provide excellent and logical feedback...which I do very much appreciate -and I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that.

I guess there are two camps in the 'rules lite' section:

One, who prefers a rough outline they can add to,

and another who prefers a 'pond o' options' they can choose from.

I know I for one, enjoy debate on a matter, hearing what others think, then drawing ideas from the whole, etc.

I'd argue that the side that wants a bucket of rules aren't really looking for "rules light." They are looking for Lego: The Building. What they really want is something that is completely modular, so they can use which, and how many, rules they want. That can end as a light game, but it most likely will result in a game that seems inflated; look at d20.. it is the "modular insert" approach, but it became so self-integrated that the "pieces" forgot where they came from. There really aren't too many games that make the "building kit" approach very useful without putting a ton of effort on the guy running the game; C&C tried to balance between the two, especially as the CKG comes out.

Ah, but on that note, there are some who wish for rule clarifications, without wanting a '5 foot step then attack of opportunity', etc.

It's all a matter of degree.

This thread's topic concerned magical protection.

Since C&C draws many fans who are either sick of 3rd ed., or those who enjoyed 1st ed., we invariably draw stuff along with us.

And since much o' C&C is based upon the SRD, when we need a rule clarification which is ambiguous, we post our question -to double check- or consult other sources.

This is neither to undermine the nature of the game, but rather to seek guidance when things aren't spelt out clearly.

Sure, we may tweak afterwards, but we want to know what the rules say first, to have some point of reference.

To ridicule someone as being 'less smarter/skilled because of it' reduces the openess of those debates, and -I believe- undermines the C&C system overall.

The more ideas the merrier eh?

slimykuotoan wrote:
The more ideas the better eh?

*chuckles* Quite. Which, what with all the ideas on 'how to resolve the problem' in this thread, is precisely why C&C doesn't need to restrict creativity with an 'official' rule eh?
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

gideon_thorne wrote:
Which, what with all the ideas on 'how to resolve the problem' in this thread, is precisely why C&C doesn't need to restrict creativity with an 'official' rule eh?

No, but a clarification is helpful, in order to create a starting point.

...and to not be ridiculed as being unimaginative for asking questions, undoubtably helps the process along as well I'm sure.

Sure, the more ideas the better (hell, I'm likely one of the most guilty regarding the making of rules for C&C,) but that doesn't preclude the notion that its not needed, either. To compare, though not exact: many people will argue (sometimes violently) that landing on Free Parking gets you $500 in Monopoly, and others will laugh it off as a needless excuse to have a rule for the board piece (which otherwise is simply a safe zone, despite the fact it doesn't say it anywhere in the rules.) What it ends as is simple: what the particulars playing want, and whether they can make it so. C&C does that, quite brilliantly, by not handing every single thing. This is both deliberate and inexcusable, simultaneously, to different people. Its part of the simplistic nature, and why C&C can bridge between games with very little buckling.

I don't believe I have stated anyone is less intelligent or less skilled... Some just have the desire to do it (make changes,) like myself, regardless of what it does, or why it does it -- just to see the rule modification in action is good enough. The why is less important than the process, I think, with the end result being of the greatest value. This is why, at the culmination, whatever you do to have fun with C&C is good, and the single binding unit to everyone's game, regardless of whether they play the same one.

Yes, many have come from d20 and other "heavy games" and its natural to think in terms of that, but it doesn't mean you have to. You can, if you wish, of course, and I'll continue to point out that there are always other ways. Just because d20 or some other game does it one way doesn't mean C&C has to, should, or will.

Sort of goes right back to your "more ideas the better" thing.

slimykuotoan wrote:
No, but a clarification is helpful, in order to create a starting point.

...and to not be ridiculed as being unimaginative for asking questions, undoubtably helps the process along as well I'm sure.

*chuckles* When I ridicule someone, be assured there will be no doubt about it.
Me, I always credit people with the wit to come up with better answers for their group than a rulebook can encompass. Especially when the M&T magic item creation rules already have a reasonable abstract starting point. (That being, as I mentioned earlier, the rarity of both the spell caster required and the chances of encountering such a combination of items)

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I did pass on the inquiry for 'official' clarification. The reply is posted.

From what I can see, experienced players, in general, don't seem to need an official hard rule, they already have their own method, and new players, in general, don't seem to mourn the absence.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

K- chuckles aside, Serleran, occasionally you belittle people in your responses.

gideon_thorne, you've been the arbitrator only as far as I can tell, and don't offend people.

slimykuotoan wrote:
gideon_thorne, you've been the arbitrator only as far as I can tell, and don't offend people.

Drat. I need to try harder. *digs around for his woopie cushion*
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Anyway, the moral of the story is that we all have different styles of play, so let's all try to indulge in them and keep C&C alive.

...and if you stop responding to my posts serleran, I'll be the worst for it.

You bring a logic to the game that we'd all sorely miss.

If you throw rules out there, such as magical armor, you should go so far as to say how to stack the bonuses. Even if its a line like" Stack them however you want." To throw armor bonuses out there and then have people wonder how they should do it wastes their time when you can give a simple guideline.

I guess its more important to leave such a simple thing unaddressed so it can be pointed at as someones excuse that C&C is an incomplete system that only half way delivers on a rules base for the game to be played with.

Its a simple thing to address, so it should be addressed. I am dissappointed that so many people want to hold up such a minor thing as taking away CK creativity and being too much rules bloat.

This has been an issue every edition of the game. Even 3.0, until fixed with 3.5. Since its an easy issue to address I thought it would be addressed. I guess its something that would rather be ignored.

Ah forget it. I doubt rules gaps like this is going to kill C&C. Heck, 2E survived for 10 years with these kinds of problems.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

First, there is no such thing as "stacking" in C&C. Nowhere is there a reference to it. Hence, it is impossible because it does not exist. Therefore, you could rule that: only one piece of AC adjusting goods apply, including shield with armor, or helmet -- though that would be rather absurd, unless you wanted an incredibly strict play of the "rules as written." The rules are already present, and need not be restated. Even if they are (see below.) You could also rule that, because there is no stacking, everything adds together, which is a valid option (see below.)

Second, there is no loss by not stating the rule over and over again. C&C can be played without the "stacking rule" and has been. Just because some prefer one thing over another doesn't mean it is the "right" (and by that, I mean the intent of the design, and not some "elitist correct style") way [and that applies to everyone equally, like when someone says "that's errata because I'd do it this way" -- only time that might be true is when the original author says it, and then, only maybe, because those who have final say get to make those decisions.] Personal desires notwithstanding... the rules are rather plain on the matter: decide for yourself.

Thirdly, and repeatedly, the "rule" has been stated in the books, only not in the words: this is how armor (or, more precisely, AC) works.

This, seemingly contradictory conundrum gives three possible definitions of the "rule."

1) only one item that affects AC can be used at one time (most unlikely, simply based on inherent game logic, and because of the explicit mention of using a shield with armor.) -- Throw this one out because of a break from "internal consistency."

2) use as many as you want. Likely due to no mention otherwise, but looking for internal consistency (something a CK should be expected to do) makes this one get the boot at anything AC 30 or more because the same logic used above (internal consistency) diverges at AC30+. However, this one has credence if one recalls that M&T was not written with a PHB on hand; that book had not even existed yet, so the author of the monster stats and abilities (well, most of them, anyway,) yours truly, used an assumed maximum AC of 30 for player chracters.

and 3) use as many as you want to a limit. Absolutely correct because of the failing of 2. It also meets the core problem faced by "not being stated" because it is implied.

Now, if your argument is essentially: the PHB should have stated the maximum AC, then I'd agree with you. But, its not. The argument is "how many AC items can one wear." That answer is easy: as many as it takes until you hit AC 30. The other, equally viable answer is: as many as the CK allows you to get. If that is thirty pairs of tube socks +5, so be it.

I would not suggest allowing an AC above a 30 though, because the characters will be nearly impossible to hit, unless you start using creatures with 40 HD. But then, you're running a numbers escalade.

But, I think I'll stop here. Peter has given the official Troll answer. use whatever, and as many, items as you want to boost AC. This implies that the assumed maximum AC is no more... but if one adheres to the general trends of "low magic" this should not be a problem for CKs in the long run; it does tend to be problematic for those with an affinity for high-powered magic items, though. So, it seems, we actually have something in common: we don't agree on how the armor class system is currently set up.

Wasn't that worth the hassle of having to hear me ramble?

Oh, and, umm, if I am belittling to others, I am sorry. I don't mean to be, honest. I don't always agree, of course, but that's no excuse for being an ass.

Next time, just smack me. I'll learn, somehow.

slimykuotoan wrote:
No, but a clarification is helpful, in order to create a starting point.

...and to not be ridiculed as being unimaginative for asking questions, undoubtably helps the process along as well I'm sure.

As the DM/GM/CK ect it is up to you to clarify the rules in your game.

concobar wrote:
As the DM/GM/CK ect it is up to you to clarify the rules in your game.

Now, I don't expect the CKG will have a 'hard and fast' rule on the matter either. But as Steve's wont there likely will be more of an essay on the placement and distribution of treasure, or something of the sort.

Personally, I've got no problem with characters with magical rings on each digit one can put them on. But in my game, excessive AC stacking is unlikely to come up simply because of how I set up treasure.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

concobar wrote:
As the DM/GM/CK ect it is up to you to clarify the rules in your game.

That statement makes no sense.

The whole point of the thread is to ask whether there is a rule for magical stacking AC bonuses.

So if someone asks: "Please clarify the seige engine system. Do I add my level if its a class ability?"

The response would be: "It's up to you, you're supposed to be the CK, and the CK can do anything."

serleran wrote:
First, there is no such thing as "stacking" in C&C. Nowhere is there a reference to it. Hence, it is impossible because it does not exist. Therefore, you could rule that: only one piece of AC adjusting goods apply, including shield with armor, or helmet -- though that would be rather absurd, unless you wanted an incredibly strict play of the "rules as written." The rules are already present, and need not be restated. Even if they are (see below.) You could also rule that, because there is no stacking, everything adds together, which is a valid option (see below.)

Not to play rules lawyer, serleran...is something I hate myself, and rarely do either. But stacking is mentioned in the rules about magic armor, in the first paragraph of the Armor & Shield Descriptions of the M&T on page 104.

Monsters & Treasures, page 104 wrote:
Magic armor bonuses never rise above +5, and stack with regular armor bonuses (and with shield and magic shield enchantment bonuses).

In that light, it makes sense that some players/CKs might start to wonder what else they stack with...or what not. Especially since the line especially mentions regular armor, shields and magic shield bonuses separately, but nothing else.

Just to make clear why people might ask for a clarification from the authors.

RULES LAWYER!!!
Serleran probably didn't know that the word "stack" was used, in his defense. Bunches of people edited that book (ahem) and one of us was probably tainted with "modern" nomenclature during editing. (ahem). Anyway, I'll take the bullet on this one, if needed.
Since I'm listed as a Troll Lord, I'd be more than happy to provide an official clarification, though that might change because Troll Lords are quite fickle.

_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back

Well, as far as I see it, we did manage easily with the same amount of descriptions in the Basic Set and didn't mind "stacking" all the magical bonuses on top of each other because that was the obvious thing to do...so I'm not sure more clarification is really necessary. It's simply a consequence that, if you hand out lots of protective items with big bonuses, you end up with characters with high ACs (or low, back then ), and an obvious one at that. The obvious solution is of course...RUST MONSTERS!!

Even though the word stack is mentioned in the M&T, and is in no doubt releated to the modern FRPG use of the word, in reading it as is, really has nothing to do with a specific rule called stack. The paragraph in mention, merely reads to add the bonuses together.

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

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

As a CK, if you like the idea of having stacking limits, then think about the viability of magic items that stack vs don't stack. Take, for example, +3 Bracers of Protection. You can add a powerful element to the game by having +3 Bracers of Protection that DO stack with magical armor, versus a pair that doesn't stack. A pretty neat way to make two versions of +3 bracers, huh?
.........................................Omote

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

Always stack your armor in neat piles, taking care to avoid dents, moisture, and smelly barbarians wanting to borrow it.

There's my rule.
In all seriousness, I think Omote hit the nail on the head. I'm not a fan of 3E, but one thing that is helpful that I think they attempted is to have similar descriptive names for things that will not stack.

X of Armor won't stack with Y of Armor.

X of Protection won't stack with Y of Protection.

X of Deflection won't stack with Y of Deflection.

X of Natural Armor won't stack with Y of Natural Armor.

However, X of Protection will stack with Y of Natural Armor will stack with X of Armor will stack with Y of Deflection.

"of Armor" includes normal armor. Magical 'Bracers of Armor' would be included here, and count as simulating a suit of armor.

"of Protection" adds to armor class and saving throws by some absorbent force.

"of Deflection" adds to armor class by diverting blows, not absorbing them.

"of Natural Armor" makes the skin tougher.

Ring of Protection + Bracers of Armor + Amulet of Natural Armor = all bonuses are cumulative.

Bracers of Protection + chainmail + Ring of Protection = lowest "protection" bonus isn't added - either the bracers or the ring will work, but not both.
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back

Quote:
Serleran probably didn't know that the word "stack" was used, in his defense.

No, I did not know it was used. Sorry. I should fine comb M&T so future discussions don't indicate me as a dolt. Damn, I'm chagrined.

Uhm...don't get me wrong, it's not like I sat down and combed through the book until I found the word "stack" somewhere. All I did was check the part where I thought such rules might hide themselves...the part about magical armor. It was roughly 2 minutes worth of reading. I definitely am not the kind of guy who scoures a rulebook for a shred of text to support his point of view...unless I am in a discussion with my rules-lawyerly friend, because then I need all the printed back-up I can find.

slimykuotoan wrote:
That statement makes no sense.

sure it does

slimykuotoan wrote:
The whole point of the thread is to ask whether there is a rule for magical stacking AC bonuses.

And the initial question has been answered a half dozen times. there is currently no official rule concerning stacking. But thats not enough for some of the community that feels like if there is no rule then there damn well should be. to that I say you are the CK make the rule that suites you and stop trying to turn C&C into 3.5. The C&C rules are yours to do with as you will... Do you need to be told how to run your game? I like to believe we as a community of gamers and dreamers are more intelligent and free thinking than that.

slimykuotoan wrote:
So if someone asks: "Please clarify the seige engine system. Do I add my level if its a class ability?"

The response would be: "It's up to you, you're supposed to be the CK, and the CK can do anything."

If someone asked me to clarify the siege engine I would tell them to read the book. If after reading the book they still didn't get it I would question whether or not they have the common sense to be playing an RPG.

That's quite possibly the most hostile response I've seen to people who ask questions...

*chuckles* Quite. It is ok to ask questions on these boards, really it is.

Certainly, the original question has been answered, but it seems as though folks wish to discuss the why's and wherefores further. Ergo the topic has evolved into a tangent. And thats just fine. Those no longer interested in the topic feel free to generate new ones or find others of more interest. ^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

gideon_thorne wrote:
It is ok to ask questions on these boards, really it is.

OK, um... I've got these red sores on my... um, nevermind.

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

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