NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8967046" data-attributes="member: 82106">First of all there's a 2 point gap between NADs and AC, which is utterly pointless. It was obviously put in with the theory that it corrected for weapon proficiency, but all they needed to do was add implement proficiency that worked the same way instead. This deals with all the hand wringing about weaplements and crossover corner cases where a feat applies to a vs NAD attack etc. etc. etc. Not, by itself, a HUGE issue, but why even have this issue in the game? If you get rid of it, you can drop tons of silly restrictions on which feats work with which types of powers, etc. Its just BETTER.Then there's the issue with the variance between Skills, Defenses, and Attack modifiers. If they all follow a more consistent progression then you can do things like sub in a skill to replace a defense (say with a feat or utility power effect, or even a class feature). This opens up a LOT of new design space, and again gets rid of a few odd points where limitations were placed on things, or certain stuff just 'didn't work' like escaping from a grab.These 2 things are definite rough spots that really had no reason why they existed in the design except just generally a lot of 4e seems to have been thrown together or reworked at the last minute.I solved all of these quite easily:Skills, weapons, and implements all use the same proficiency rule, +5. We can argue about if it should be +2, +3, or +5, but as long as the number is the same for all... Then I just plain got rid of AC, but you could keep it and just make it average the same as the NADs. Honestly, it removes a lot of silly corner cases and annoying limitations on stuff. More than you would even think.</blockquote>

Verification