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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8986390" data-attributes="member: 82106">Well, let me put it more this way. You could keep everything else EXCEPT the progressions present in the skill system, and you could recreate the skill side of the game. It doesn't need a DRASTIC recreation, what it would require would be the introduction of 'tools' that would be able to carry the enchantment bonus (which could also be applied as a level bonus via the DMG2 mechanism) and then you would need to get rid of a lot of other weird misc skill bonuses, reduce trained to +3, and include something that would sub in for taxpertise. Now skills correspond exactly with attacks and the DCs per level chart also becomes an expected defense value chart, effectively. Meanwhile the combat side of the game COULD remain exactly as it is now. Skills would measure up fine against NADs, though AC would still be 'off by 2', though in this case the proficiency bonus of +3 means skill checks would kind of split the difference between vs AC weapon attacks and vs NAD 'other stuff'. This is an imperfection, but one that already exists in 4e.HoML just goes one step further and obliterates the 2 point difference between AC and NAD, giving all weapon and skill proficiencies a +5 and removing AC from the game entirely. NPCs (IE monsters) still retain NADs, but PCs get 'active defense'. This is a deeper hack, but the result is a completely consistent system where there never need to be rules forbidding things like applying weapon proficiency to an attack using an implement. Whether the proficiency bonus should be +2, +3, or +5 is of course an interesting question. I guess it could also be some other number... I've used +5, though it tends to mean non-proficient weapons are hard to use (but then again nobody ever did that in 4e anyway).</blockquote>

Verification