Talk:Adorable (3.5e Equipment)

Ratings

	Ghostwheel opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	If the stacking part wasn't there it would be okay. But causing someone to fall off the RNG, particularly defensively, is one of the worst offenses in system design.

	Fluffykittens favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
	"You swing at the Balor. You are distracted by just how cute his fluffy earmuffs and hello kitty jacket are and miss."

uuh

>Adorable may be taken multiple times, the bonuses stacking.

I can't think of any way this could possibly be abused. +2 ac versus a fucktonne of creatures and a infinitely stacking +2 to diplomacy? It's the most balanced thing I've ever seen. Fluffykittens (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It's intentional. You trade +1 AC (from enhancement) for +2 AC against a more limited set of creatures. Evil creatures (common) and things immune to morale effects (anything mindless, so many Undead and Constructs) will ignore it. The skill bonus was mostly gravy. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The skill bonus is untyped, and stacks with all of the other ridiculous item boosters out there. Was that intentional? - Tarkisflux ^Talk 04:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I should apply a typing to the skill bonus (since it is intended to stack with itself, but not necessarily other boosters). -- Eiji-kun (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The armor bonus by itself is far from broken, but it's the bloody shit cherry on top of the stacking bullshit diplomacy bonus. Reign in the skill bonus, and it'll be fine. As of now, adorable armor can very easily turn anyone into a diplomancer, even by accident.Fluffykittens (talk) 05:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Even though it doesn't stack with the most common bonus type now? That's changed.

If it's still a problem, I'll just drop it to +1 bonuses so you cap out at +5 instead of +10. Presumably though you'd be rocking a up to +30 Ring of Diplomacy anyway if you were going for that. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 05:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd just make it so the morale penalty to enemy armor stacks and not the bonuses to diplomacy etc. (and keep it a competence bonus). Fluffykittens (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Eh, I just don't see it. If you were a real diplomancer, you'd be getting a +10 or greater from something else anyway, so it's not really a useful bonus to them. That said, seems easier to drop it to a +1 instead of +2, it IS gravy after all. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 06:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Works fine now.Fluffykittens (talk) 06:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

On the armor bonus

I wouldn't say it's "instead" of the armor bonus, since you can easily get +5 full plate of 5x adorable and get a whopping 8 (base) + 5 (enhancement) + 10 (adorable) = 23 to AC just from armor... and then there's more if you pick up a shield. I would definitely not make it stack with itself. --Ghostwheel (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, you can easily get that for the low, low price of 100,000 gold. Spanambula (talk) 09:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

A price high-level characters would be more than willing to pay to fall off the RNG, and MUCH cheaper than a +10 weapon. --Ghostwheel (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yyyyyes, but here's the thing: in high-level play even unoptimized characters have long since begun to fall off the RNG as they hyperspecialize in their roles, gaining large bonuses in one area, usually causing a lack of bonuses in other areas. Looking at all the other stuff you can get with 100,000, a +23 armor that's only +13 against a goodly number of monsters in no way seems egregious. Also, even in core games AC scales much more slowly than other things (like, say, attack rolls). I think if a PC is willing to sink half his WBL at 15th level into one losable, destroyable item, they can go for it. Lastly why are we talking about +10 weapons pre-epic? Spanambula (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The reason that AC lags behind attack bonus is so that iterative attacks are on the RNG. That's what the system is predicated around. Obviously you're not going to buy this in a campaign where you fight mainly evil and mindless enemies, but if you're fighting good and neutral enemies for the most part, then this is way too powerful. And don't say silly things like buying +10 armor at level 15. At level 15 they could buy a +1 armor of 5x adorable and get a huge boost to AC compared to everyone else. And we're talking about +10 weapons pre-epic because you're supposed to have those pre-epic. Epic begins either at +11 total enhancements, or +6 to weapon enhancement. Just like +5 armor of 5x adorable would be a suit of +10 armor. Finally, anything that the players have access to, the DM should also be able to use. How would you like to go up against someone with this armor and be entirely ineffectual against him? But seriously. Falling off the RNG, especially on the defensive side, is bad for the game. I don't understand how people can't see that. --Ghostwheel (talk) 12:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If we're going to go down the "hypothetical campaign where we only fight creature X" road we're not going to get anywhere, nor do I feel that's an acceptable standard by which articles should be judged. You were the one who mentioned +10 armor in a high-level game, and I tend to think of 15th level as the low end of high-level, so that's why I'm saying "silly things" like +10 armor at 15th level. Anyway, falling off the RNG defensively in only one area (such as AC) is hardly overpowering. Now if something the party is supposed to fight has disproportionately high AC, unusually high high saves, high touch AC, mettle, improved evasion, miss chance... THEN that's poor design, since that shuts everyone down. But if something just has high AC, that shouldn't make an entire group ineffectual against it, ESPECIALLY at high levels of play. Spanambula (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

AC is one of the four defensive stats. Becoming virtually immune to 1/4 of the types of attacks that target you (more, since many enemies target AC, and this even works vs. touch attacks) is huge. You still have a ton of other resources to invest into other stats. Saying, "It's only one of the four defensive stats" is a poor excuse. You shouldn't fall off the RNG in any stat, especially not from just one item. --Ghostwheel (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Monsters typically have huge attack bonuses, also touch attacks. High Ac is generally a pretty poor defense compared to miss chance or total cover. --Leziad (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

"Becoming virtually immune to 1/4 of the types of attacks that target you" Intelligent, high level, nonevil creatures typically are either closet trolls (like Big T) or have spellcasting and other abilities that target your saves (like Angels and Dragons). And as Leizad was discussing, greater blink + displacement + cover is often better than armor and available at much lower level. Fluffykittens (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)