Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Siberys" data-source="post: 5793215" data-attributes="member: 30619">I agree. Ideally, a +1 magic item would be it - maybe +2, tops. Taking magic items out of the expected math is in fact on my 5e wishlist. But the fact is, for at least the last 11 to 12 years, there has been an expected math by level that has been assumed for monsters which included minimum magic item bonuses for both attacks and defense. I can't speak to pre-3e, but it's not as if this is a new thing.Losing out on even just a +x item is major, even if it doesn't seem that way. It cuts a large chunk off the top of you chance to hit (or tacks a large chance on to your chance to be hit), loses you out on several thousand gold, and can cause the player issues, too. 4e's rust monster still does all of that except the &quot;lose out on the gold&quot; part, and even then you might as well have until you can get back someplace to have the item replaced. Which could be a very, very long time.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Siberys, post: 5793215, member: 30619"] I agree. Ideally, a +1 magic item would be it - maybe +2, tops. Taking magic items out of the expected math is in fact on my 5e wishlist. But the fact is, for at least the last 11 to 12 years, there has been an expected math by level that has been assumed for monsters which included minimum magic item bonuses for both attacks and defense. I can't speak to pre-3e, but it's not as if this is a new thing. Losing out on even just a +x item is major, even if it doesn't seem that way. It cuts a large chunk off the top of you chance to hit (or tacks a large chance on to your chance to be hit), loses you out on several thousand gold, and can cause the player issues, too. 4e's rust monster still does all of that except the "lose out on the gold" part, and even then you might as well have until you can get back someplace to have the item replaced. Which could be a very, very long time. [/QUOTE]

Verification