Hustle and Constitution?

[Emirikol]

The Core rules note that you can only Hustle for one hour, regardless of constitution, before you take damage. That is an obvious oversight.

House Rule: at one hour, DC 10 Con check is required to prevent damage. Each subsequent check adds a -1 penalty.


Sound great?

Emirikol the Chaotic

 

[gamecat]

Are you the same emirikol as in the 2e phb?

Nothing escapes me.

I think your houserule is acceptable.

 

[Piratecat]

Nothing escapes me.

Except for the fact that the picture of Emirikol the Chaotic was in the back of the 1e DMG.

 

[Emirikol]

Actually, he appeared in the 1st Ed. DMG and a scenario called...

Em

 

[gamecat]

Except for the fact that the picture of Emirikol the Chaotic was in the back of the 1e DMG.

No, PC, I remember a pic of a guy on a rearing horse with fire on his hands in front of a "green griffon" pub, with three sword-wielding mo-fos.

In the lower left(?) corner there was "Emirikol the Chaotic" enscribed. It was one of the later 2e phbs.

 

[Ravellion]

I would agree with your house rule, exept I do think you should then request CON checks every ten minutes after that... otherwise it is just too easy to hustle for a very, very long time.

 

[Emirikol]

Right. There is a clarification. Like the run-rules, there is an additive -1 to each subsequent check.

jh

 

[hong]

No, PC, I remember a pic of a guy on a rearing horse with fire on his hands in front of a "green griffon" pub, with three sword-wielding mo-fos.

In the lower left(?) corner there was "Emirikol the Chaotic" enscribed. It was one of the later 2e phbs.

No, it was in the back of the 1E DMG. IIRC, it was right next to the infamous city encounter table that had multiple chances for meeting prostitutes.

 

[gamecat]

I guess mine was a misprint...

A dmg with all the classes and the spells, but no magic items. A 1st edition dmg that said "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" on it. Yeah. That's it.

 

[SylverFlame]

Gamecat, the pic you're describing WAS in a 2e book (one of the PHB printings), however, the pic was a reprint. It did originally appear in a 1e book (can't remember which). As such, you're both right.