Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9212764" data-attributes="member: 6877472">The thing is though, and this is the weird part...if you look at earlier versions of D&D, there wasn't really any need for a math fix.  Super low AC's were actually kind of rare, and for warrior types, the bulk of their ability to strike foes came from levels, not magic items.I have some high level AD&D characters, and the hit chance for some is downright silly, to the point that they almost never miss.  So why do I need a +3 magic weapon?Well, it comes down to three things, as I see it (I'm talking about bonuses to hit here, as bonuses to damage certainly make sense if your foes keep getting tougher and you have no or few innate way(s) to increase damage).First, not every character was a warrior.  If you're a Cleric or a Thief, you're expected to enter melee, but you're just not as good at it.  So for these classes, it is kind of a math fix. It's worth noting that in 4e and 5e, this is no longer a factor.Second, it was a way to "tier" magic weapons.  Some enemies need +1 to hit.  Others +2.  Still others +3, and so on.  This is also a relic of the past, as it's not terribly good game design, when you get right down to it.  Sure, needing a legendary weapon to tackle a legendary foe makes sense from a narrative perspective, but it just means that at some point, your perfectly good magic weapon has to be traded for the newer better model even if it was mostly working just fine.And finally....I think pushing warriors into "almost always hits" was intended.  When you're attacking twice a turn and all you do as a class is make attack rolls, without a lot of ability to do anything else in combat, missing just feels like a complete waste of a turn.  So why not push warriors into the stratosphere for hit chance?  Of course, this could have been better modeled if that was the intent, but if the designers had a problem with this, they would have fixed it back in the dawn times, I would think.</blockquote>

Verification