Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kzach" data-source="post: 5696514" data-attributes="member: 56189">Umm... gonna have to disagree here.First of all, monster levels only came into being when 3e was introduced. Before then, it was always hit dice, and hit dice were based more on an inconsistent internal logic that only applied to monsters than it was on any sort of 'level equivalency'.Second of all, hit points were an entirely different beast in D&D before 3e. The average hit points of a 20th-level wizard in 2e were about 35 (assuming every level was rolled and no Con bonus). An average goblin could do 1d6 damage. The AC and THAC0 would make it difficult but not impossible for the goblin to hit. Now... it's not exactly a 'threat', but at the same time it's not completely irrelevant either.The only characters with massive hit points were warriors and even then, only the ones with big Con bonuses. Damage didn't significantly increase like it does in 3e/4e either. And even the hit chances weren't substantially different for anyone but warriors.Taking out scaling in 4e doesn't mean there aren't increases in attack chance, damage, or hit points. It simply means that the changes aren't massive like they are currently.The point is that advocates of taking scaling math out of 4e are, whether they realise it or not, wanting a D&D MORE like older editions of D&D, NOT less.</blockquote>