Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rhenny" data-source="post: 5858240" data-attributes="member: 18333">To me flatter math isn't the primary issue, but it may need to be flattened to achieve the primary issue.For me, the primary issue has to do with bloated AC.  It is silly to have AC increase for higher level creatures if they don't increase in dex or armor value.  AC should be grounded in some standard.  A heavily armored creature with average dex should have AC 18-22.   Higher dex with armor maybe up to 25 AC, but there should be some loose cap. Lightly armored creatures, no matter what level should be AC 12-14, etc. (not sure these are the right numbers..just eyeballing it).Monster hit points could increase with level, damage per attack could increase with level, to hit bonus could increase with level (but probably not as much as it did in 4e).If AC is loosely capped, there will be no need to add too much to attack bonuses, and feats/options/powers could grant more interesting attacks rather than attacks that hit more often.If attack ability is divorced from stats, even better.  Then, we would never have an issue of a high strength cleric becoming a better fighter than the fighter.  Let the bonuses come from the class progression, and perhaps feat choices (giving specific races specific weapon bonus feats like Elves get +1 with bows, Halflings get +1 with slings, Dwarves get +1 with hammers or axes, etc.).</blockquote>