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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6120052" data-attributes="member: 7006">And this is exactly why 4E presumed the "magic weapon" advancement it did when it came to how they advanced the math and the monsters.  They knew magic items (and power bonuses) were going to be handed out more often than not... and they wanted to make sure that encounters did take them into account.  It's also why (despite critics declaring otherwise) I felt the need to add the Expertise feats to "balance the math" weren't actually necessary... because those 3 points to attack gained at each tier were more than made up from all the other bonuses PCs got from powers, combat advantage etc.In order to keep the math in a good place... it's imperative to check it against both ends of the attack bonus spectrum-- the highest possible attack bonus based upon stats, weapons, spells, magic items etc. as well as the lowest possible attack bonus based upon the same criteria.  When you do that... and you find out just how wide the disparity is between the two... you can more accurately determine where creatures should fall.Should EVERY possible character and NPC be able to hit a monster of a certain level?  Then the lowest possible attack bonus and AC of the monster has to reflect that.  Then compare that AC to the highest possible attack bonus and see just how easy it is for those PCs to hit.  If their attacks become basically automatic... then it's time to either reduce the bonuses in the game that got that PC there... or give a few more bonuses to the low end PCs, and then also raise the monster's ACs a few points.Speaking personally... I would not want to see a gap of more than 10 points between highest-possible and lowest possible attack bonus if at all manageable (not including bonuses gained from Artifacts.)  You keep that swing, and I think you're probably going to do pretty good.</blockquote>

Verification