Blastit

the main reason really is stylistic differences between scrappers and tankers, "too strong" might be true but is a fig leaf because when you port a set to another AT you can change some of the powers.

And finally a reason to really put all of the map to use! There's so many little nooks and hiding places that nobody thinks twice about, it's a real shame since the original devs put so much time into making it all.

This would be fun just because of how people would have to arrange underground costume contests and dodge sting operations

No. A random roll of 1-6, for each bonus type, locked in at character creation. We have to get more serious about wasting people's time.

Immediately the point of 4 bonuses of the same type and size instead of 5 seems to be to decrease the absolute peaks any given character can achieve in something via IO bonuses

My personal little pet project would be to make a melee weapon secondary for blasters and melee weapon APPs for the squishies that let you use any of the broadswords, battleaxes and warmaces for the cosmetic. Equal smashing/lethal damage to square the difference. Combining the damage types into one generic set saves time on making sets for each weapon and lets the melee ATs have specialisations in them as their own thing. Maybe call it "Warrior Training" and "Warrior Mastery" or such. Other than that, it depends on what the whole HC project is supposed to be about. Gotta have clarity of purpose.

It took a moment of reading for me to get what you even meant but now that I have grasped it in full I completely support this suggestion. Giving a "bare meaty arms" option for tops that don't have it would be a fantastic addition to any of the body types.

Why? Can't you just ignore incarnate stuff?

The reason this was "cool" was because it completely upended the difficulty balance and the effort:reward ratio balance, though. The eternal problem of discussing balanced gameplay is that some people use it to mean "any given option will overall deliver on its gameplay fantasy without feeling like you're wasting your time and being a hindrance to your team (with caveats for circumstances that gameplay fantasy is inherently bad at)" and some use it to mean "everything is exactly the same". Additionally, people are just psychologically different. Some people genuinely just think that seeing lots of wolves is SO COOL and can do that for hours every day while other people want varied and challenging gameplay and would honestly imprison the first group if they could. It's like how last I played Hearthstone the eternal battle was between players who wanted their choices to matter and players who just wanted to see things happen.

Two aura options sounds good to me. Being able to pick one eye option and a separate body option would be huge.

If I had one selfish wish for Empathy it would be to make the two RA powers into toggles. I don't know if this would solve anything or be enough or whatever but I would like it.

I would love a system for creating two-letter chest emblems. Just adding a list of every single two-letter combo is possibly the simplest way but seems like it'd be clumsy to use. Maybe a system for defining the right and the left letter?

It did remind me that I do have a stone/ice stalker gathering dust somewhere. Maybe it's high time I went and took Mountain Man for a spin again...

This is a really "might as well" issue. Might as well bring it up, it would be more elegant and convenient for toggles to suppress rather than drop. If it's easy, might as well do it.

Stone Armour already has very nice minimal effects options. Sure, the rocky shoulderpads cover some shoulder costume choices, but plenty of Fiery Aura overpowers aura options. Options are great but sometimes things get very -"I want Broadsword but not a sword" -"Battle Axe is fun" -"No, it must be Broadsword but not a sword"