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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5707619" data-attributes="member: 82106">Yeah, that might work. You'll want to devise some way that the less dexterous fighter can tank up his armor class too if he wants, Honestly maybe the modifier should be CON and not DEX. I'd think the 2 basic concepts you want to foster would be "big tank guy in heavy armor" and "quick guy in lighter armor employing footwork and precision". This was actually what 4e was aiming at with its AC system. However, if you always use the lesser of the DEX/CON/STR (whichever, CON or STR) bonus for heavy armor you'll probably end up pretty close to that working. The guy with a high DEX and CON will be able to wear plate and have the best AC of all, but his attacks will probably be a bit less hard-hitting. Add to this the concept of having weapon (and implement for that matter, see below) to control attack stat. This lets you encourage logical pairings. The high DEX guy probably wears lighter armor and uses light weapons that base off DEX. The big bruiser guy wields a big weapon and wears heavy armor. A guy that has a good DEX and CON could wear heavier armor and use a light weapon too. It just requires a bit of working out numbers.I think that any pre-reqs MUST come from existing core things that will be in PHB1. Otherwise you'll end up with a growing mess as the game expands. The way around this is to build in other types of requirements. Clever Riposte requires a light blade, which in turn is only a sensible option for a high DEX character. You CAN make a Fighter that uses that power and is based off light weapons, he'll just be more 'strikery' when using it than the baseline for fighters. Rogues will still have the greatest synergy with high dex and probably have some class feature that still makes it even more potent in their hands. This can be extended to arcane casters as well with implements performing the same sort of function. Any arcane caster can potentially let loose a fireball, but you'll need to cast it using a wand, which is an implement based off DEX, which means in practice it will only be fully useful to certain builds. Characters that are built crosswise to standard archetypes are possible this way, they can gain some degree of useful flexibility because their class feature supports their role but they use powers that are typically more suited to some other role. You could even include some feats/masteries that are aimed at providing these off-label builds with parity where it is needed.With this kind of scheme you don't really need to worry about some new class coming along next week and needing to be wedged into the system. The worst thing you'll run into is the guy that says "yes, but MY fireball using guy wants to be using a staff!" which isn't any worse than what we have with 4e (and again you might provide some mastery or a specific item with a special property that gives you that). In fact here's a way it could work with implements. Each implement can have a 'correspondence' not based on the form of the implement, but on some other characteristic of it. Thus "Oak" implements are good for casting powers that use Thunder and Lightning. They can be wands, staves, etc, it doesn't matter, that's totally fluff. It doesn't actually add anything you can't do with 4e now if you're willing to refluff a wand into a staff, but it will assuage the people who don't like that kind of thing, and it takes up the existing concept space of superior implements.</blockquote>

Verification