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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AeroDm" data-source="post: 5572784" data-attributes="member: 13650">Grr. The system was created for an alt-4e system I am making but I tried to change most of it back to 4e centric rules. Some of it slipped through because I'm too accustomed to the change like Lethal (high crit) and Duelist (should benefit AC as well).I wouldn't look at it as giving untrained characters an attack bonus as much as making simple versions of all weapons. For some weapons that "feel" like they'd be complex, I left damage higher but reduced proficiency bonus to +1 at the basic training level. Since an attack bonus is generally worth more than damage, this discourages their use by characters without at least martial proficiency (but does not preclude it). The base system (no bonus if not proficient) is too punitive, in my opinion. My alternate system already incrementally incents a character to wield a weapon they are most proficient with, but removing all bonus transitions from incrementality to cliffs. The types of scenarios where a character might have to wield their non-preferred weapon are interesting and the base system discourages them too heavily.I hadn't really put much thought into monks (nor even ranged weapons) just yet. One thought that crept up, though, would be to allow monks to customize their fists under the system linked in the other thread and give them more "points" as they progress in levels.Finally, with regards to races, I have been toying with the idea of just allowing races to treat all weapons of a certain type as having a feature. So, for instance, dwarves might treat all weapons of group "chop" as high crit. This would reliably provide a benefit since I tried to sync high crit to piercing, cutting to slashing, and brutal to bashing weapons.Anyhow, thanks for the comments. Gives me lots to think about.</blockquote>

Verification