Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Felon" data-source="post: 448440" data-attributes="member: 8158">GP?Maybe it's just me, but on top of the practical issues involved in the need for a solid 8 hours of sleep a night, it just doesn't seem very heroic. Maybe there's a simple Con check can be made by characters who receive less sleep. The difficulty is based on how little sleep you're trying to bet by on. Failing the Con check means that you don't recover any spells for those hours of sleep.A less harsh and less random system would be to only provide a partial recovery of spells. Knock off your highest level spell if you only get 6 hours of rest, your 2 highest if you only get 4 hours of rest, etc.Yes, the Epic Level Handbook even made the concession that only allowing a range of 10 points between &quot;dying&quot; and &quot;dead' is inadequate. I'd like to see level and/or Con score influence this. I think most people would agree. It boggles the mind that 3e's designers saw fit not to modify this artifact.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Felon, post: 448440, member: 8158"] GP? Maybe it's just me, but on top of the practical issues involved in the need for a solid 8 hours of sleep a night, it just doesn't seem very heroic. Maybe there's a simple Con check can be made by characters who receive less sleep. The difficulty is based on how little sleep you're trying to bet by on. Failing the Con check means that you don't recover any spells for those hours of sleep. A less harsh and less random system would be to only provide a partial recovery of spells. Knock off your highest level spell if you only get 6 hours of rest, your 2 highest if you only get 4 hours of rest, etc. Yes, the Epic Level Handbook even made the concession that only allowing a range of 10 points between "dying" and "dead' is inadequate. I'd like to see level and/or Con score influence this. I think most people would agree. It boggles the mind that 3e's designers saw fit not to modify this artifact. [/QUOTE]

Verification