Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8532937" data-attributes="member: 6987520">Well, it doesn't really "throw it away" so much as expand it a bit. Personally, I always felt bounded accuracy was a bit too bounded. IIRC, it was supposed to cap (more or less) around 30ish, and I think 40ish would be better. I certainly don't want crazy numbers like prior editions, but a bit bigger would be nice IMO.Correct, but notice RAW is +11, mine is +12. Do you really think a 1-point difference is going to break anything?Correct, emphasizing the greater disparity between level 1 and level 19+. IMO a 4-point difference in proficiency RAW between +2 and +6 is a bit pathetic. Add to that the fact a level 1 PC can have a +7 with a 20 stat makes it even worse!This is meant to create a greater rift between tier 1 and tier 4, as well as remove ability scores (which can off balance it IME at low levels especially with min/maxers).Yeah, it was at first. It was Attack rolls and AC, while Saves relied on the class proficiency to be better, all non-proficient were poor. If you think that is a better method, I might go back to it. What do you think??That is a good point. I could separate out Spell Attacks from Spell Save DCs, and possibly add more categories. One possibility would be Spell Progression (probably what you meant by Magic Slots?) where it would be full, half, third, and none?Thanks for your input!</blockquote>