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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 5782943" data-attributes="member: 710">Actually - without that magic weapons, he may also be challengable by a group of giants, just as in 2e. The situation doesn't really change. You cannot avoid to "bake" the items in your math. As long as they will give a bonus, it means that you will be better with them than without them, and it means they affect whether you find enemies challenging or not.Sure, you can make 15 level monsters and pretend those +3 from items don't change anything. But those 15 level monsters will be easier to fight with +3 items than without, and they will also be easier to fight with them than a similar group of monsters were several levels earlier when you only had +1 weapons.It is kinda like the argument that says that a 15th level Wizard should be stronger than a 15h level Fighter. I think it makes more sense to assume that the "level" is the baseline across all classes, and not just one class internally. If you think that Wizards need to be more powerful than Fighters, say that Wizards get twice the XP, or can always be 5 levels above the Fighter in the group to nail down the difference. But levels and "items by level" or "wealth by levels" and "challenge levels" are inherently more useful to build your game if they all work operate on a comparable scale and assume a shared baseline. Otherwise you end up with "Level 5 Giants are appropriate challenges for Level 3 Fighters paired up with Level 4 Wizards and Level 6 Clerics, assuming they have LEvel 5 weapons and Level 3 wands and staffs".</blockquote>

Verification