Stacking of magical and mundane items (Forked Thread: Great weapon fighter...)

[NorthSaber]

Forked from: Great weapon fighter is a "trap"? Forked Thread: I don't optimize.

As a short introduction, we've been talking about various equipment and whether they can be used together. The conversation was sparked when someone suggested you could use a mundane shield and magical bracers, and some disagreed. We continued on to argue whether you could wear a set of cloth armor beneath a set of plate armor (as an example), and which benefits and properties would apply.

Continuing here from the other topic...

What are you going to do with a bunch of iron rings of the dwarf lords? Its not like putting it on gives you an unused healing surge(in which case you would only need once as you would continually be "gaining" healing surges). Its like half of the feat "durable"

Actually this got me thinking. What if you had used up all of your Healing Surges for the day and then you got one of these rings. You'd get another full Healing Surge, right?

Couldn't you then use the Healing Surge and pass the ring on to the next person? Most DMs would probably rule that the Healing Surge of the ring had been used up for the day, but I think by RAW the second person would get the Healing Surge just the same.

 

[Goumindong]

You "gain" a healing surge in the same manner you "gain 5 hit points" from the feat toughness.

 

[Andor]

You "gain" a healing surge in the same manner you "gain 5 hit points" from the feat toughness.

And if I could take that feat off and hand it to another pc, what would that mean, exactly?

 

[SableWyvern]

And if I could take that feat off and hand it to another pc, what would that mean, exactly?

Well, it would mean you lose 5hp, at least.

Remove the ring, and lose a healing surge. If that takes you to -1 surges, I'd say you're in trouble. In that instance, Losing a healing surge worth of hp seems like a good starting point for consequences, if you are going to allow the ring to be passed around.

 

[NorthSaber]

Schroedinger's Armor Class. An indeterminate AC that depends on what the DM feels like today?

Now if you are saying the "which one you put on first" rule applies then you're caving into the rules text which explicitly state you receive no benefit from the second one.

I'm saying that if we allow you to wear two sets of armor (like cloth and plate), the heavier armor worn should define whether you get the Dex/Int bonus to AC or not.

Besides the ludicrousness of trying to claim realism regarding the use of magical items. The cloth padding in a set of plate armor is only a part of the whole. Just like you don't get to use the properties on half of a holy symbol it does not work with half of an armor set.

It was just one example that illustrated how you can have articles of clothing underneath the metal plates. Magical cloth armor is usually described as being a robe or a jacket, so I don't think anyone can claim that you couldn't physically wear something like a jacket beneath your plate armor. And if you can enchant said jacket... You see where I'm going with this? Physical constraints, at least, cannot be the limiting factor here.

So now your saying that its physically impossible for a character to use a shield and bracers of mighty striking at the same time? its "bracers" not "Bracer". There are two of them, and the other does not go around your third arm.

I'm saying it's physically impossible to wield a shield and have a delicate spring-loaded system you described wrapped around the same arm, yes. I've seen pictures of various types of shields and I can't say that I'm convinced that most types of bracers/wristbands/bracelets would exclude the efficient use of a shield.

Wear and Carry. Notice those two specific words there. Wear and Carry. Not "use" and "wield". Someone with a light shield can carry a weapon in their shield hand. But they cannot use it, and they cannot wield it.

This is true. The only example in the rules that would support my view is flimsy too. Bad, rules, bad.

No one is saying you cannot do it. I am saying that you receive no benefit for doing so as per the rules explained on page 224.

In this example (wearing a cloth jacket beneath plate armor), there would be no benefits anyway. In other cases, like wearing magical bracers and a shield, I disagree, and still hold that page 224 is only referring to magical benefits.

I don't think either one of us will change our minds concerning this essential point. To sum up my arguments, I don't think there is any universal physical, in-game-logical reason against wearing different items in the same "item slot", like a cloth jacket underneath plate armor, or shield and bracer, and I think the item slot rule only refers to magical benefits. Sometimes the physical constraint is there, like in the example of the spring-loaded wrist mechanism and shield, or three sets of plate armor on top of one another, for instance.

If I have understood correctly, you tie the item slot limitation to mundane benefits as well, and knock down my examples where there is no logical reason for the equipment not to stack, aside from game mechanics.

If one is to place game mechanics and the economics of resources ahead of in-game logic and common sense, as 4e tends to do in many places, I believe you may be right. Won't change the way I play the game and interpret the rules, though, and many people read page 224 the same way I do - not that that is any proof either way.

 

[balard]

I think the slots limitations are magical, not physical. You can wear a magic bracelets with a mundane shield. Or a magic shield and a mundane bracer. Or you take out the left arm metalic cover when you straps a shield with a plate mail?

Now the cloth armor and a plate armor I don't know. Luckly my players will never thing about it. I think not but just for mechanical reasons, if someone argued taht is possible, i would give -2 to all attacks becouse is kind tight and hot inside all of these layers of clth, leather and metal.

 

[Syrsuro]

Slots are slots and are a game limitation. They are not subject to logic or analysis any more than hit points or other abstractions are.

They exist for balance, not an attempt to simulate a universe.

You can only gain the benefits of one item per slot, period.

As for passing around rings of Dwarven Lords, I would rule as follows:

The extra healing surge (and any other expendable passive property on an item) is a 'daily' property as well. If the character uses the extra healing surge (or other expendable passive property), it is no longer available to any other character that day. The alternative house rule would be to require them to wear the ring for 24 hours before gaining the property.

(That said - I'd call the Ring of the Dwarven Lords poorly written for that reason. Expendable passive properties like this are always problematic and should be avoided. Even more so in a game system that has an intrinsic mechanism -encounter, daily timers - to properly handle them.).

Carl

 

[Goumindong]

I'm saying that if we allow you to wear two sets of armor (like cloth and plate), the heavier armor worn should define whether you get the Dex/Int bonus to AC or not.

yes, but that is not the way game works. You are using a house rule to justify using the rules incorrectly.

It was just one example that illustrated how you can have articles of clothing underneath the metal plates. Magical cloth armor is usually described as being a robe or a jacket, so I don't think anyone can claim that you couldn't physically wear something like a jacket beneath your plate armor. And if you can enchant said jacket... You see where I'm going with this? Physical constraints, at least, cannot be the limiting factor here.

1. This has nothing to do with what you are quoting
2. You are agreeing with me

I don't get it

I'm saying it's physically impossible to wield a shield and have a delicate spring-loaded system you described wrapped around the same arm, yes. I've seen pictures of various types of shields and I can't say that I'm convinced that most types of bracers/wristbands/bracelets would exclude the efficient use of a shield.

The spring loaded system which I used to extract a mechanical benefit that no one else does would not be going on the shield arm. Logically it makes very little sense why they do not work together. At least in this instance. However, allowing such interactions breaks the game. Players will put everything anywhere in order to gain some mechanical advantage.

This is not Goonies & Dragons, players do not have unlimited item slots just because the item is not "magical"



This is true. The only example in the rules that would support my view is flimsy too. Bad, rules, bad.

In this example (wearing a cloth jacket beneath plate armor), there would be no benefits anyway. In other cases, like wearing magical bracers and a shield, I disagree, and still hold that page 224 is only referring to magical benefits.

And you are still wrong. On both counts since there would be a mechanical benefit to putting on the light armor by RAW wearing a light armor under or over your plate would give you all the benefits of wearing light armor.

Which is ridiculous. And this ridiculousness is a direct substitution away from claiming that shields work just fine when used over bracers.

If I have understood correctly, you tie the item slot limitation to mundane benefits as well, and knock down my examples where there is no logical reason for the equipment not to stack, aside from game mechanics.

If you need a fluff reason to justify rules designed to keep the game fun and balanced then you can easily make them up. In the other thread i have already given you four fluff reasons to use for shields and bracers.

 

[Maxim Machinery]

Slots are slots and are a game limitation. They are not subject to logic or analysis any more than hit points or other abstractions are.

They exist for balance, not an attempt to simulate a universe.

You can only gain the benefits of one item per slot, period.

Your first three sentences are absolutely correct, and I brought up this point in the first thread. In your third, however, you neglected to include the word 'magic' inbetween 'one' and 'item.' Page 224 is clearly referring to magical items, when it refers to slots, not every single item, ever - see below.

And you are still wrong. On both counts since there would be a mechanical benefit to putting on the light armor by RAW wearing a light armor under or over your plate would give you all the benefits of wearing light armor.

You are correct, but the absolute RAW, wearing cloth under (or over, either's good) plate armour would allow you to add your Dex or Int bonus to AC, along with the +8 armour bonus for the plate. Nothing in the rules prohibits this, in spite of your continued twisting of the intent behind page 224. Yes, it is perfectly rules legal to do this, but do you honestly think you'll get away with it at a table?


What you both need to understand is that D&D's rules are not iron-clad, nor watertight nor inviolable nor any other metaphor for absolute be-all and end-all you wish to come up with. This is not WoW, where the rules of the universe are hard coded, and HoJ works one one particular boss because of a bug. This is not Magic: the Gathering, where every piece of non-italicised text is law. Now, you can claim all you want on this board that plate + cloth = profit, but it won't mean you can get away with it at a real table (I point you to the Dragon Disciple). If you think you can divorce intent and implied grammatical follow-through from the rules, you're sorely mistaken.

The ONLY limitation on what you can use, by RAW, is one magic item per slot (clearly stated on the very page you keep bringing up to support your argument, see the implied grammatical followthrough of the words 'magic item' early in the section), and as much mundane equipment as it makes sense for you to be toting around (see the section on encumbrance). Yes this means, by RAW, that you can wear plate and cloth and have an AC of DOOM. It is within the purview of each individual GM as to exactly how, and to what extent, they say 'no.'


In summation:

• Page 224, if read by an english speaker (the intended audience, and thus the prosaic format to which the paragraph was tailored), reads that you may only benefit from one magic item per slot, but multiple mundane ones are fine.
• Following on from that, page 224 was not written as a legal document, and thus is not bound by letter-of-the-law shennannigans, ergo distinctions between 'wield vs. carry' and 'wear vs. use' are irrelevant - it was written for laymen, not lawyers
• According to this, you may continue freely with your ploth (clate?) armour, unhindered by ethical constraints about 'breaking rules.'
• As soon as you sit down at a table, a rational, intelligent DM, will rule that your clate (ploth?) armour is in violation of the spirit of the rules, and disallow it. Using a non-magical shield and magical bracers, however, would be seen as reasonalble, by this same individual.

It is possible that there are DMs who would be aghast at the notion of having a bracer's daily power while still gaining a bonus to your AC and reflex defences, and those individuals are free to house-rule it out, but it is not, in any way, shape or form disallowed by RAW, and from a purely common-sense perspective works fine.

 

[toxicspirit]

For those of you on the side of slots counting toward mundane as well as magical items, would you allow a character to wear a non-magical necklace/pendant and a non-magical cloak at the same time? Both items, when magical, take up the same 'item slot', so under your rulings about non-magical items using the 'slot' system, no person could ever wear both at the same time. Seems dumb to me.

As far as I am concerned, the 'item slot' system refers only to magical items, and not to mundane variations of things that could be used in that physical area of the body (unless mutually exclusive, like multiple pairs of boots, etc.). A person could easily wear 3 or 4 other non-magical rings as well as the two magical ones that he can benefit from.