Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CroBob" data-source="post: 5894875" data-attributes="member: 6683307">I'm almost certain there was no such optional rule in 3rd or 3.5rd, because I had to house rule such into my campaign. I made it optional to simply take half your di type, then add your die roll halved. I had a friend who was so unlucky with HP rolling that he once had a character take his sixth level in fighter and take toughness just to break the double digits. Rolling for HPs is a bad idea, as you're just as likely to do poorly as you are to do well. There's no guarantee your class's typical HP totals will be typical.This is probably the best thing 4th did for us.I've met lots of people who simply don't want this. I'll never understand the desire to have innately superior and inferior classes, but I don't think it's wise to allow stubborn old dogs to ruin a potentially good game.I think a decent solution to this is status prioritization. Only the worst condition needs to be tracked. Making a good way to implement that may be difficult, though. As long as the penalty higher archly is thoroughly considered, it should be doable. There will be ongoing effects aside these status effects, of course, but only doing the highest ongoing damage type would help, and maybe making hunter's quarry and marks a similar, in-stackable type of debugging would help, as well as put some pressure on the ranger and fighter to work as a better team... I dunno, just spitballing.At any rate, getting rid of status effects would make the game less fun, so the trick is to reduce the difficulty in tracking them.</blockquote>

Verification