D&D 4E 4e's Inorganic Loot System: Yay or Nay?

[Psychic Robot]

I don't see where it assumes monsters have magical equipment. It assumes they have a competence level commensurate to their level of menace, sure, but I don't see how it assumes they're using magic items. You're making a literal reading into a general abstraction made for game balance. Having a magic threshold of +2 doesn't assume that every piece of gear the NPC is carrying is a magical item with a +2 bonus. It's a rules abstraction made for game balance that reflects a system taking into account competence levels vs. inherent magical power.

Try reading the DMG. It specifically mentions equipment. And the magic threshold prevents lower-level magic items from functioning, which one can extrapolate means that the monster is effectively using higher-level magic items that negate the lesser bonuses.

And quit calling me a troll because you're mad that you got in trouble for calling me an idiot. It's starting to try my nerves.

I'm calling you a troll for trolling. I'm sorry that you and the moderators apparently can't see the difference between an analogy--an apt one, at that--and actually calling you an idiot, but any incompetence in reading comprehension is your own problem, not mine.

 

[Wormwood]

It's a rules abstraction made for game balance that reflects a system taking into account competence levels vs. inherent magical power.

Yep.

When my group defeated [minor KotS spoiler]

Spoiler

the hobgoblin warcaster, they didn't get his thunderstaff.

And they grokked why not.

 

[The Little Raven]

I'm calling you a troll for trolling.

Which is against the rules you agreed to when you signed up. Report his post if he's a troll, otherwise it's not your place to try and publicly chastise him for it.

 

[Thasmodious]

4e assumes that monsters have magical equipment/magical-equivalent equipment that is already included in their statblocks, hence the existence of the magic threshold. They don't drop this equipment upon death. So instead of having monsters with realistic equipment--because magical equipment certainly isn't rare in D&D--that could be sold, the developers just instituted a ban on such things.

He's right, you really don't get it.

And verisimilitude means believability, not "the way I did things in 3rd edition".

 

[Psychic Robot]

He's right, you really don't get it.

And verisimilitude means believability, not "the way I did things in 3rd edition".

So the 4e "don't pick up the thunderstaff the monster was clearly using" method gives the appearance of truth to the game?

Interesting train of thought.

 

[Wormwood]

So the 4e "don't pick up the thunderstaff the monster was clearly using" method gives the appearance of truth to the game?

Nope. But the fact that not every magical-looking effect that a monster throws at you comes from a magic item doesn't strain believability for some of us.

 

[ryryguy]

Try reading the DMG. It specifically mentions equipment. And the magic threshold prevents lower-level magic items from functioning, which one can extrapolate means that the monster is effectively using higher-level magic items that negate the lesser bonuses.

Wait, what?

No, really, the default assumption is that the monsters are not using any magic equipment at all. Because of that assumption, they get hidden built-in bonuses to compensate. In the unusual cases where a monster actually is using magic equipment (which indeed is lootable by the PCs), we don't want the magic equipment's explicit bonuses to stack with the hidden built-in bonuses. The magic threshold stuff is just a mechanism to prevent that unintended stacking.

Ordinarily, the staff a monster is using with its "thunderstaff" power is really just a staff. The thunder part comes from the monster and his power. It's no different then if you took a staff from a 1st level wizard who was using it as an implement to cast magic missile. The staff won't let you cast magic missile, it's just a staff.

I can see where it would bug you if it worked the way you're imagining... but it really isn't supposed to work that way.

 

[CountPopeula]

Wait, what?

No, really, the default assumption is that the monsters are not using any magic equipment at all. Because of that assumption, they get hidden built-in bonuses to compensate. In the unusual cases where a monster actually is using magic equipment (which indeed is lootable by the PCs), we don't want the magic equipment's explicit bonuses to stack with the hidden built-in bonuses. The magic threshold stuff is just a mechanism to prevent that unintended stacking.

Ordinarily, the staff a monster is using with its "thunderstaff" power is really just a staff. The thunder part comes from the monster and his power. It's no different then if you took a staff from a 1st level wizard who was using it as an implement to cast magic missile. The staff won't let you cast magic missile, it's just a staff.

I can see where it would bug you if it worked the way you're imagining... but it really isn't supposed to work that way.

This is exactly it. Just because an NPC has a magic threshhold of +2 doesn't mean it's carrying a +2 weapon and wearing all +2 armor. What it means is that the NPC or monster is less competent with a +3 magic item than a PC would be with the same magical weapon.

 

[Psychic Robot]

DMG, page 174
A monster’s magic threshold is an abstract representation of its equipment, power, and general effectiveness against characters of its level.

What it means is that the NPC or monster is less competent with a +3 magic item than a PC would be with the same magical weapon.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would a level 1 kobold receive more a benefit from a +4 weapon than a demon lord? Is it because the demon lord is so powerful that the magic weapon doesn't affect its abilities nearly as much as it would a kobold's? Because I could see the reasoning behind that.

 

[am181d]

That doesn't make any sense. Why would a level 1 kobold receive more a benefit from a +4 weapon than a demon lord? Is it because the demon lord is so powerful that the magic weapon doesn't affect its abilities nearly as much as it would a kobold's? Because I could see the reasoning behind that.

Give a knife to a child and the child is more dangerous. Give a knife to THINGU, THE MOUNTAIN THAT WALKS and TTMTW is not substantially more dangerous.