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

[Maxim Machinery]

Wow. I honestly feel less intelligent for having read this debate. The idea that wearing magical bracers somehow invalidates the usefulness of my non-magical hunk-o'-steel is, well, absurd. I have to wonder if this confusion arises due to use of the word 'slot' and the associated parallels to computer RPGs, where one's paper-doll avatar can only hold so much, regardless of real-world physics.

RAW:

Nowhere does it state that you cannot wear clothes under your full-plate (protip: clothes are mechanically referred to a 'cloth armour') - in fact, wearing heavy plates of steel without some padding underneath is not reccomended. Nor does it specifically state that you can't wear two helmets, if one will fit inside the other. It doesn't specifically state that you can't wield two weapons in one hand either, but it doesn't have to; that's just (gasp) common sense.

Yes, common sense applies in pen & paper RPGs. If that offends your sensibilities, then perhaps you would enjoy World of Warcraft or Magic: the Gathering more. Regardless of your personal preferences, however, DMs (GMs, storytellers, adjudicators, judges, mayors etc.) have, for time immemorial (well, OK, about 40 years) enforced the rules of common sense onto the games they oversee, and shall continue to do so for countless years to come.

There is NO RULE saying I cannot wield fourty-two greatswords in my left hand, while scratching my nose with my right - it's implied. This brings me to:

RAI:

There is no inherent reason i can't wear and benefit from 10 magical rings at the same time (a-la The Mandarin). The magical item slot rules are purely a game-balance mechanic. It has always been the case that D&D has had some exceptionally powerful magic items, and that, in the high levels of play, these items have been somewhat defining with regard to your character's statistics. Thus, there has (since the humble days of Basic D&D) been a need to limit the number of usable magic items, in the name of game balance. The classical example of this is the 'two ring' rule - I can wear two rings total, no matter where I decide to adorn myself with them.

Ergo, it can be srumised that the part of the rules concerning magic item slots, is referring to magical items you can benefit from and not some strange physical property of the universe that my arms can only statistically benefit from one thing at a time (even though I can quite clearly wear gloves, bracers, bangles, a sleeved shirt and cufflinks, while wielding a shield and hanging a handbag from my crooked elbow - to say nothing of tattoos!).

In a more succinct format: I think your arguments are grasping at obscure wording to justify your ethical concerns about 'game balance' (note that I have not bothered to address wether your concerns are correct - nor will I) and that any sane GM would throw your interpretation aside for a slightly more realistic vision of what a person can reasonably 'use.'

If, on the other hand, you are said GM, I think your players will have differing opinions, and will likely argue with you. If not, feel free to continue using your interpretation - it certainly doesn't bother me what you do in your free time, so long as you keep your absurd notions to yourself in polite company or, at the very least, refrain from presenting your point of view as though it is absolutely correct and is the only possible interpretation, when others are quite clearly flabbergasted at the notion that a reasonable individual could support such a veiwpoint (I am aware of the hypocracy).

TL;DR: L2P

And I hope any moderators reading this will realise that my veiled ad-homonim attcks were meant in jest. Mostly. >.>

 

[Maxim Machinery]

Accursed gateway timout tricked me into double-posting! You've not heard the last of me, network!

 

[Goumindong]

Nowhere does it state that you cannot wear clothes under your full-plate (protip: clothes are mechanically referred to a 'cloth armour') - in fact, wearing heavy plates of steel without some padding underneath is not reccomended.

You're right. It does not say that you cannot wear clothes under your full plate armor. It does say that you cannot benefit from clothes under your full plate armor

It does not say that you cannot wear a shield and bracers. It does say that you cannot benefit from both a shield and bracers

I don't know if its the explicit rules text on page 224 that say "You can only benefit from one item that occupies any given item slot" or its the rules text on page 224 that says "you benefit from the first item that you put on and you must take that item off to benefit from anything else" that is confusing, but its got to be something in there.

So: RAW says "you can't use bracers and a shield at the same time"

And RAI says the same thing, since the item mechanics are there in order to force players to make choices as to what items they want rather than letting them stick anything wherever they want.

Cloth Armor gives you a benefit. When you wear it, you count as wearing light armor, which gives you a bonus to your AC equal to your dexterity. You can use powers that require you to use light armor and gain other bonuses associated with it.

RAI is there in the item rules to say "hey dude, you can't wield a bunch of things at the same time and benefit from all of them, its stupid"

There is NO RULE saying I cannot wield fourty-two greatswords in my left hand, while scratching my nose with my right - it's implied. This brings me to:

Actually there is. The game explicitly mentions physical limitations to using too many tiems. You cannot hold 42 greatswords in your left hand, you cannot wield any greatswords in one hand since they are two handed weapons. Ergo the rules explicitly say you can only use one greatsword at a time.

and that any sane GM would throw your interpretation aside for a slightly more realistic vision of what a person can reasonably 'use.'

A person can reasonably "use" goggles and a diadem at the same time. A person can "reasonably use" many many things to utterly break the game, and that is why we have all these rules that note when you cannot do that even if a "person could reasonably do it"

 

[Goumindong]

The bracers do not impede your use of the shield, and it would be downright silly to lose the shield's mundane bonuses just because you're using a magical trinket on your wrist.

A magical trinket which impedes the use of your shield. Why?

Take your pick

1. Its magic, a wizard did it
2. Shields are required to be strapped on and typically held at the hand. These straps do not over the bracers because they are a similar contraption themselves, and there is no way of affixing the straps to the magical bracers.

You see, the backing of a shield consists of a piece of leather formed onto your forearm, and the straps are run through a piece of formed leather to hold the shield fast. Soft leather does not work because, while it has the surface area to hold, it does not have the rigidity and under pressure will slip.

Hard leather will not go around the bracer, and fixing the straps to the bracer will destroy its magical properties.

3. The increase in distance between the fulcrum and the shield created by the magical bracers makes the shield unusable as a defensive implement except in the crudest sense. It might get in the way, but its just as easy to bash aside and then be used as a liability rather than an asset.

4. The gods are not kind to those who mess with the feng shui of arm slot items.


Pick your poison, they all work, depending on what power source you like best, Arcane, Divine, Martial, etc.

 

[NorthSaber]

I don't know if its the explicit rules text on page 224 that say "You can only benefit from one item that occupies any given item slot" or its the rules text on page 224 that says "you benefit from the first item that you put on and you must take that item off to benefit from anything else" that is confusing, but its got to be something in there.

You do realize that this chapter is about magic items, right? As far as I'm concerned, the benefits indicated mean the magical properties only.

Your mileage may vary, as they say, and apparently it does.

 

[Goumindong]

You do realize that this chapter is about magic items, right? As far as I'm concerned, the benefits indicated mean the magical properties only.

Asked and Answered. Please read the thread before bringing up redundant points unless you have specific grievance with the rational given.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Not to my satisfaction!
"These are called item slots, and they provide a practical limit to the number of magic items you can wear and use."

Putting on a nonmagical anything doesn't ever interfere with the number of remaining slots you have.
Plate armour comes with boots, and helmet, and arm guards. Item slots of those locations aren't likewise used up.

You are also simply repeating what you're saying, so I guess there's no bridging this gap.

 

[FadedC]

My argument is nothing of the sort. My argument is that you can only use one item in any slot at a time, my argument is not that using bracers negates the shield. You are perfectly able to use the shield, OR use the bracers. But you cannot use the shield AND the bracers. To change from using the shield to the bracers you need to take the shield off and put the bracers on first. To change to using the shield you need to put the shield on first. As per RAW

Actually that is the only legitimate rules basis for your argument....your claim that the rules don't specify magical property when they talk about item slot. Because the rules outright say that if you wear bracers and a shield, you only recieve the benefit of the item you put on first, this would mean that putting on non magical bracers first would invalidate the use of a shield (magical or otherwise). The fact that non magical bracers provide no benefit do not change the fact that only the first item put on has an effect.

If your trying to claim common sense, well then obviously that's not the case. But your whole argument is not based on common sense. It's based on the claim that the rules specifically say you can't have bracers and a shield, regardless of magical properties. Despite the fact that there is no game balance or logic reason for that to be illegal.

As a side note i'd say your claim that bracers of defence give more protection then any magical shield bonus is highly questionable, given that they only apply to a single attack and use up your daily item use which is often far better used for other better protective properties. Something like the shield of deflection seems far superior for perosnal protection.

 

[Goumindong]

Not to my satisfaction!
"These are called item slots, and they provide a practical limit to the number of magic items you can wear and use."

Putting on a nonmagical anything doesn't ever interfere with the number of remaining slots you have.
Plate armour comes with boots, and helmet, and arm guards. Item slots of those locations aren't likewise used up.

You are also simply repeating what you're saying, so I guess there's no bridging this gap.

If you do not address the specific rules text there isn't much I can do but repeat what I am saying. You are making an argument that has already been debunked. It doesn't matter if the general rule talks about magic items, the specific rule is for all items.

Plate armor comes with boots, helmet , and arm guards but takes up no item location for those things. When you get a magic item you simply replace the part of the armor.

 

[Archmage]

You do realize that this chapter is about magic items, right? As far as I'm concerned, the benefits indicated mean the magical properties only.

Asked and Answered. Please read the thread before bringing up redundant points unless you have specific grievance with the rational given.

The "specific grievance" would be that the rationale is wrong. You're quoting text that specifically refers to magic items and saying that it applies to normal shields as well. Specific quotes from the text:

"You can benefit from only one magic item that you wear in your arms slot even if, practically speaking, you can wear bracers and carry a shield at the same time."
That pretty plainly says that you can benefit from only one magic item, and it is not fluff text - it is in the text defining magic item categories.

Sometimes there are physical limitations as well—you can’t wear two helms at the same time.
Surely you can't think that this applies to bracers and a shield - no such physical limitation applies.

Let's go farther back in the rules:
Light Shield: You need to use your shield hand to wield a light shield properly. You can still use that hand to hold another item, to climb, or the like. However, you can’t use your shield hand to make attacks.
Heavy Shield: When you use a heavy shield, you gain a greater bonus to your AC and Reflex defense, but you can’t use your shield hand for any other task.
This is from the definition of shields in the Equipment chapter, page 214. The only restriction here is on what your shield hand can be used for. Clearly, nothing here prohibits the use of magical bracers.

I can't find anything in the RAW that would prohibit using a non-magical shield while wearing (and using) magical bracers. The passages you are using to defend the counterpoint all refer specifically to magic items that occupy the same slot. As others have said, there are no slots for non-magical items. A non-magical shield doesn't use an "arm slot" - it must be strapped to an arm, and there are limitations to what you can do with the hand on that arm, but that is NOT the same thing as an item slot. Those are specifically defined under the heading "Magic Item Categories:" These are called item slots, and they provide a practical limit to the number of magic items you can wear and use."

It may be a perfectly reasonable house rule to say that you can't use a normal shield with magical bracers, but that's exactly what it would be - a house rule.