Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alex319" data-source="post: 5098694" data-attributes="member: 45678">You could simply say something like, all  +3 proficiency weapons get +1 to their damage rolls per [W]. That about fits with the existing system where +2 prof weapons tend to have about 1 point higher [W] than equivalent +3 prof weapons.It seems like the problem you're having is that having a shield gives you a "passive" penalty (not having a 2-handed weapon, or having to spend a feat to use it) that is on all the time, while the benefit it gives you is "active" - you have to reduce your attack or take total defense in order to use its benefit. And taking a penalty to attack to get a bonus to defense is usually disadvantageous, because you can direct attacks to where they are most needed, while if you increase your defense enemies can (usually) attack someone else. Essentially under your system the choices are (1) have a two-handed weapon, which gives you a better attack all the time with no downside, or (2) have a weapon and shield, which gives you an option to reduce your attack to increase defense - an option which is usually not advantageous, and even when it is it has a downside.Maybe you should make it just like armor: say a light/heavy shield gives +1/+2 HP per tier. You could also say it gives +1/+2 AC when you take a total defense or second wind - that would make it more useful because second wind is used muh more often than total defense.Another issue to think about is that the way it currently works, classes with only light armor proficiency tend to be high in dex or int, which offsets their low AC. Since in your system dex and int no longer help AC, this nerfs light armor users vis-a-vis heavy armor users. Of course if that is what you want then so be it.Resist all damage is probably not a good idea. If effectively everyone had resist all, that would affect lots of monster powers - for example ongoing damage zones, and other powers which do a little bit of damage over and over again, would be a lot less effective. Increasing HP would probably be better.There are effectively three major types of attacks in the game:(1) Weapon attacks that target AC.(2) Implement attacks that target other defenses.(3) Weapon attacks that target other defenses.AFAIK, there are no implement attacks that target AC.Now, weapon attacks tend to be 2-3 points higher than implement attacks because of the proficiency bonus, but AC tends to be 2-3 points higher than other defenses. Thus in the existing system, attacks of type (1) are balanced with attacks of type (2) because the two effects cancel out, but attacks of type (3) are better. So if you wanted to replicate that you could say that (1) and (2) type attacks hit on 10+, while (3) type attacks hit on 8+.There's also a third type of attack: attacks that don't have a weapon or implement, but do have a tier-scaled bonus, such as a Dragonborn's dragon breath. In this case the tier scaled bonus substitutes for the implement enhancement bonus, so it's effectively like an implement attack, and can be treated as such. Another thing is combat maneuvers like bull rush and grab. These are not weapons or implements, but have no tier-scaled bonus to replace the implement bonus, making them very hard to hit with at higher levels. This is probably not an intended feature of the game, so you can fix that by treating those like implement attacks in the system above, so they would hit on 10+. However that would provide an unusual situation where the 8 strength wizard would be just as effective at grabbing opponents as the 20 strength fighter.</blockquote>

Verification