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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Philosopher" data-source="post: 4461676" data-attributes="member: 76803">Thanks <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=":)" />Yes, the reason I decided to just extend the pre-existing rule on non-proficiency is that it's simple.However, I've thought a little bit more about this. The classes that rely on armor would seem to be at a disadvantage. Here are a couple of suggestions on how to handle that:1) Classes with heavy armor proficiency could get a bonus to AC as a class feature. This may have to scale with level. The only problem, however, is that they'd get the bonus to AC with the cost of encumbrance or movement penalties.2) Perhaps a Parry feat can be added that grants a bonus to AC. The problem with this, though, is that all classes would equally able to take this feat. Unless, perhaps, it had some sort of prerequisite?In any case, I hope this issue doesn't make things too complex, since, as I said above, I'd like to keep it simple.Regarding the classes - I like the descriptions Quickleaf and Dr. Strangemonkey give for the barber, merchant, etc. That makes them fit the 4e standards better.I'll give some thought to putting together some class build from the master list Quickleaf provided. Over the next week or so, as time permits, I'll see what I can come up with for that (or regarding other ideas).</blockquote>

Verification