Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 9389146" data-attributes="member: 7006">True, but I would attribute that more to DMs just not paying much attention to what their monsters were doing, rather than there be something inherently wrong with the d4. If the DM just grabs monster based on level/CR or any other metric of so-called &quot;difficulty&quot; but doesn't actually take a closer look at what their selections (or the party) can possibly do... there will very often be disparities. I know there are a lot of DMs out there that want a game that will run perfectly without them having to think about anything at all... but unfortunately that type of game is rare (and most certainly isn't a version of D&amp;D).All that being said... I actually agree with you that removing the d4 for HD was just a good way of accomplishing things a bit easier. I certainly have never thought the game was losing anything by having Wizards and Sorcerers on the d6.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 9389146, member: 7006"] True, but I would attribute that more to DMs just not paying much attention to what their monsters were doing, rather than there be something inherently wrong with the d4. If the DM just grabs monster based on level/CR or any other metric of so-called "difficulty" but doesn't actually take a closer look at what their selections (or the party) can possibly do... there will very often be disparities. I know there are a lot of DMs out there that want a game that will run perfectly without them having to think about anything at all... but unfortunately that type of game is rare (and most certainly isn't a version of D&D). All that being said... I actually agree with you that removing the d4 for HD was just a good way of accomplishing things a bit easier. I certainly have never thought the game was losing anything by having Wizards and Sorcerers on the d6. [/QUOTE]

Verification