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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="broghammerj" data-source="post: 4016711" data-attributes="member: 1869">I'll throw out a few thoughts which may differ from much of this thread (I did read 16 pages..ugh)By tying the +'s to specific spots you really can limit some character concepts.  What if I want to make a swashbuckler type character who doesn't wear armor?  No more bracers of defense really hurts him.  Or perhaps an unarmored fighter who simply wields a longsword and shield?  To make the concept playable, his shield certainly needs a defense bonus.  We haven't seen if there are benefits for some classes for being unarmored.  Wizards are addressed in that their robes can be "armor", but there are a lot of other non-armored characters around.Who really cares if there is stacking as long as it's limited to +5.....Why is leather armor +3 and a magic shield +2 so dangerous?  Achieves the same goal, but isn't so limiting.Ring level restrictions....I'll echo what a lot of others have said.  Seems pretty arbitrary.  The previous poster who brought up the ring of warmth is spot on for a great ring for heroic level characters.  Heck I would even argue that all body slots should have some items restricted or at least suggested for paragon and epic level characters.  Why can't there be a super powerful belt that only and epic character can wear?I agreed with many that DnD is defined by having +1 swords, but the more I think about it the more we should think out of the box.  Would you really complain if you had a sword which was a flame tongue at heroic, allowed fire resistance at paragon, and allowed you to transform into a fire elemental 1/day as an epic character.  The +1 sword would be left in the dungeon.Lastly, as Jester said.  Function should take precedent over body slots.  You may like boots of speed but perhaps I like a similar concept of cheetah leather armor.  Either way we could be restricted to one movement item.</blockquote>

Verification