Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 9284706" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Magic items were a required part of the 4e math too. Both systems were definitely guilty of the accuracy treadmill, but I think the reaction to 4e’s iteration of it was harsher, in part because 4e was more transparent about it. You needed a certain amount of system mastery with 3e to notice that CR didn’t work (for a given value of “work,” of course) if you didn’t get the right magic items by the right levels. Whereas in 4e, your level just directly added to your rolls and defenses, and the DMG advised setting DCs based on the party’s level. And you still needed certain magic items by certain levels to keep up with “level-appropriate” monsters, at least until Dark Sun introduced “inherent magic item bonuses.”So, yeah, clearly bounded accuracy was designed to address a problem that existed in both 3e and 4e, but I think it was specifically the reaction to it in 4e that WotC was trying to quell.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 9284706, member: 6779196"] Magic items were a required part of the 4e math too. Both systems were definitely guilty of the accuracy treadmill, but I think the reaction to 4e’s iteration of it was harsher, in part because 4e was more transparent about it. You needed a certain amount of system mastery with 3e to notice that CR didn’t work (for a given value of “work,” of course) if you didn’t get the right magic items by the right levels. Whereas in 4e, your level just directly added to your rolls and defenses, and the DMG advised setting DCs based on the party’s level. And you [I]still[/I] needed certain magic items by certain levels to keep up with “level-appropriate” monsters, at least until Dark Sun introduced “inherent magic item bonuses.” So, yeah, clearly bounded accuracy was designed to address a problem that existed in both 3e and 4e, but I think it was specifically the reaction to it in 4e that WotC was trying to quell. [/QUOTE]

Verification