What feats? I said nothing about no feats originally.
I'm sure there will be a ton of separation between those two even if you gave commoner some spells or something. But I understand and agree with the sentinement overall.
What you are proposing is not in opposition with what I'm proposing...
The purpose isn't to be or feel special. The purpose is to make moving during combat more enticing for players. To perhaps put that action on par with the 2nd or 3rd attack.
I think you get to use your shield without spending an action for its base effect, but can opt to use your shield better if you spend an action. Actually I really like that idea.
Is Talisman a great game? I know it has avid haters as much as fans, but it meets all of those criteria:
I'd say:
· if a game is played by a great many people
· who love to play it (they're not just passing time/killing time/playing to socialize)
· who play it for hundreds of hours (per person)...
Warriors should be good in all kinds of weapons (barring implements), otherwise I like it. Priests have been traditionally depicted as using maces and staffs so it makes sense. Same with rogues using daggers rapiers and crossbows.
If this idea is utilized, what about monk? It would make sense to...
I'd change it to bare proficiency bonus, otherwise casters will end with best armor bonus in the game.
Other than that I like that proposal quite a bit, should be interesting to see in play.
One thing though, armors themselves need to do something, and be different from eachother in the same...