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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kzach" data-source="post: 5285042" data-attributes="member: 56189">I'm finding that, more and more, I prefer to have an implement-based character rather than a weapon-based one. It's just neater, more organised, more organic, the character just seems to 'work better'.The restriction of a particular weapon has always been a thorn in my side. I much prefer weapon-groups. It's all fine and well if a character wants to specialize in a particular weapon as their signature style, but let's face it, there are only a few weapons that players actually use from the large list, simply because there are always stand-outs.Instead of having a huge and complex list of weaponry, why not just make every power implement-based? In fact, do away with the concept of the implement/weapon dichotomy altogether, and just say that powers work with whatever weapon the character is proficient in.You could still have brutal, stout, etc. properties, but simply say they apply only to the power damage. So a power might be 2d6 and your weapon is brutal 2. Better yet, only certain properties work with certain powers, much like fighter powers that get special bonuses based on the weapon wielded.This way you could stress certain leanings with certain classes. Rogues, for instance, would generally not get brutal bonuses on their powers, thus making them lean towards lighter weapons. Fighters could get lots of brutal powers, whilst other classes could perhaps get 'accurate' weapons (+3 weapons could get the 'accurate' descriptor, adding +1 to the attack roll, since the proficiency bonuses would no longer mean anything).Just spit-balling mainly, but I really do like the concept of divorcing damage from the weapon-type. It would both make things a lot simpler, and yet add another dimension to the game that I think would improve it.</blockquote>

Verification