>I'm not about to suggest a new system, but you haven't
>either. You're suggesting improvements to the old system.

You're right...because I still haven't seen a system suggested that I think is worthy to replace it, and you are one more person not offering a suggestion.

>While these are all positive changes, the system itself is
>still bad. The positives you're suggesting still result in a
>net negative. If you're hoping to produce something
>worthwhile, you'd be better off scrapping the old system.

So suggest a better one.

>The flip side of the coin is that, with the enormous amount of
>work you guys have put into the old system, it's pretty
>unrealistic to ask you guys to start back at square one.

I completely re-wrote dual wield because it was an enormous piece of ####. It's not unrealistic to think we'd scrap something entirely and re-write it if something was vastly superior.

>With
>that in mind, these are pretty acceptable improvements. Now
>get back to work on the important stuff, like the Shaman
>revamp.

Shamans? Screw them!