Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8027686" data-attributes="member: 6801228">That changes nothing about my point? If at the table it was 4 to 2 against, then the majority of that table for that campaign would have voted against the rule. And been invalidated because six people not in that campaign voted to keep it. It doesn't matter at all (to me) if next campaign those four were split up between the two tables and only two people at each table were against it, they were voting for this campaign.Okay, so if you roll low, you are not allowed to take a wizard? How does that help you make a more balanced party, what if everyone rolls low. Because it sounded to me like you were rolling for the order you picked, and between two tables there are three wizards. Which means one table, they have two wizards, and you said that you were not playing with the "every party can only have 1 of a given class" rule. So, again, did you just have three people at every table wanting to roll wizards? More? Because six years is a lot of game time and I just don't understand what this system is or how it is fair.</blockquote>