Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bladewing" data-source="post: 4739620" data-attributes="member: 74290">This discussion seems to be drifting away from the read title, imo. There so few implement vs ac powers, there's no reason for a proficiency bonus to implements because of them. Now if those few powers are underpowered or not is another point entirely.Personally I find the cleric powers ok and the warlock power too weak, as a warlock I would take another power at that level. If I want the power anyway for rp reason I'd suck it up as is, because I find making weaker choices for rp reason perfectly valid. Perfect balance in all things would be better of course but that's utopia, and changing every weak rule/power/feat that's picked for rp reasons will quickly fill a book, so that's a slippery slope.Back to the topic then I think implements in general do not need a proficiency bonus because I assume they are balanced around not having one. If some of them aren't balanced but underpowered that's flawed design, and with the amount of powers in the books something like that is of course bound to happen. If they had given an implement proficiency bonus they would have had monster nads 2 points higher across the board and we'd be back where we started. Now, if anyone is in favor of giving a proficiency bonus without changing monster nads they're effectively asking for +2 to hit with all their powers...</blockquote>