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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ingolf" data-source="post: 4171843" data-attributes="member: 1783">The conceit in play is that any monster has a built-in bonus to its attacks and damage consistent with what a monster of its level should get from magical gear, but it doesn't actually have the gear. Given that as a starting point, there is nothing illogical about subtracting that inherent bonus from the bonus it gets from wielding actual magical items when you advance or otherwise customize the monster.Actually it solves it in a very elegant way. 4e is taking the power imbalnce created by the PCs access to magical gear into account in monster design in an explicit way. Earlier editions handle this issue very poorly, typically by ignoring it.As is so often the case, you look at one three-paragraph excerpt from the rules, find it lacking, and come to the conclusion that the missing information just doesn't exist. That seems to be a fairly typical attitude around here, and no matter how many times it gets pointed out, the 4e detractors just keep doing it. For all you know there are extensive rules for creating vampire spawn in the vampire spawn entry in the MM or elsewhere in the rules. I'd be surprised if it isn't at least mentioned somewhere, and there is no particular reason why it has to be part of the vampire template if there is a good reason to provide that information someplace else.You have a point in that the suggestion in the articel that the lich template works best with arcane casters isn't supported by the template itself, but that's a pretty weak complaint. I sort of like the idea of a Paladin Lich myself. There may (or may not) be a Death Knight template or some other way to create a non-arcane undead warrior, but having multiple options is always a benefit, particularly if they are easy to implement.</blockquote>

Verification