Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dragonblade" data-source="post: 5845602" data-attributes="member: 2804">Good points. Though in my opinion this is a feature not a bug. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Wouldn't it make sense that the melee types are going to be the ones getting physically hurt more? And isn't that how it works now in a straight up HP system? In editions 1e through 4e, the melee types are always taking more damage than the squishy PCs in the rear.Now, I see what you are saying though. Melee types are going to be subject to things like poison more often than a rear rank PC would be. But while thats true, I think it opens up an opportunity in the game's design to give those martial PCs class abilities or feats that work with that in mind. Like poison resistance, saving throw re-rolls, that sort of thing.You could tweak the system to address it in other ways. Instead of restricting clerical magic to Wounds, say it heals both pools, but starts with Wounds first. Or you could give some monsters special attacks that can do some direct Wound damage, though I would use that sparingly. Or you could give squishier PCs a lower percentage of their HP as Vitality and a higher percentage as Wounds. So while a Fighter might be 50/50. Perhaps a caster is 25/75.</blockquote>