Non-stacking defense

Skarg · 01-28-2019, 02:55 PM

Well that would be one effective way to avoid having people with armor that makes most people's attacks bounce, if that's what you want.

The main reasons not to would I think be preferences not to.

Of course they were designed to stack, and their difficulty and pricing had that in mind, so...

If Stone Flesh isn't changed and doesn't stack with W/A enchantment, it would be vastly cheaper (but less flexible and less durable) than equivalent +4 armor, so you'd probably want to rebalance/re-price that somehow.

And if you were not using an armor destruction system, then it would seem silly to enchant any armor other than the lightest. If you are using armor destruction, then heavier armor would at least last longer before being destroyed. (But if you are using armor destruction and this house rule, then again, Stone Flesh avoids the armor destruction question entirely.)

01-28-2019, 02:55 PM	#2
Skarg Join Date: May 2015	Re: Non-stacking defense Well that would be one effective way to avoid having people with armor that makes most people's attacks bounce, if that's what you want. The main reasons not to would I think be preferences not to. Of course they were designed to stack, and their difficulty and pricing had that in mind, so... If Stone Flesh isn't changed and doesn't stack with W/A enchantment, it would be vastly cheaper (but less flexible and less durable) than equivalent +4 armor, so you'd probably want to rebalance/re-price that somehow. And if you were not using an armor destruction system, then it would seem silly to enchant any armor other than the lightest. If you are using armor destruction, then heavier armor would at least last longer before being destroyed. (But if you are using armor destruction and this house rule, then again, Stone Flesh avoids the armor destruction question entirely.)