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

Goumindong, I am simply amazed by your tenacity. Your entire argument rests on "well, even though the Player's Handbook explicitly states one thing, I'm going to contradict the rules, claim that the printed text is a typo or a mistake, and insist that my interpretation is what is intended by the game designers."

It's a bold position, my friend. An unwinnable one, but bold nonetheless...
 

log in or register to remove this ad


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.

I was going to reply to this, but then I realised this is almost certainly an epic trolling attempt. I doff my hat to you, good troll.
 


Goumindong, I am simply amazed by your tenacity. Your entire argument rests on "well, even though the Player's Handbook explicitly states one thing, I'm going to contradict the rules, claim that the printed text is a typo or a mistake, and insist that my interpretation is what is intended by the game designers."

It's a bold position, my friend. An unwinnable one, but bold nonetheless...

Uhhh. Read page 224 again. The players hand book explicitly agrees with me and explicitly disagrees with those who argue against me.

Furthermore those who argue against me support rules that end which, if they are true, necessarily support ridiculous situations such as heavy armor users getting dexterity or intelligence to their AC(since they can just wear cloth armor under it and get the benefit from both), or a player getting a plates Base AC, and a cloths enhancement bonus and special qualities.

Rules start with their general meaning and then end with the specific implementation of that rule. This can be seen in every single situation in which a rule is described in the book. Earlier i used the shifting rules as an example, because half the people in this thread were also in a discussion regarding shifting and agreed that the rules text of "Shifting does not provoke OA" was not the rule for how shifting worked, but instead the rule that came right after that, which described exactly what shifting did was the relevant rule. Specifically that shifting only prevented OAs from leaving an adjacent square. It did not prevent any other OAs pinging on movement.

Here is thee rules text that is General:
"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."

Notice how it says "wear" and "Carry" and not "use" and "wield".: This means that you can indeed put bracers on and carry a shield, nothing prevents you from sticking the items there. Nothing prevents you from holding a dagger in the free hand a light shield uses, but that doesn't mean you can attack with it or gain two weapon fighting benefits form it being there. But something does prevent you from gaining mechanical benefit from that use.

The Specific Rule then follows what is essentially general reminder text, or introductory text depending on how you look at it.

This is that specific rule:

You benefit from the item you put on first; any other item you put on doesn't function for you until you take off the first item."

Note, in order for these two sentences to both be true, the second sentence must be the rules text. If it is not, then you are claiming that this text for some reason is not rules text, yet somehow the text right in front of it is.. These two can be true if the second is true, because all magic items are also items, even if all items are not magic items.

So there is the problem that the people against this are failing to meet two basic requirements.

1. They are failing to read the rules as written. The text, even if its in the magic item section, refers to items.

2. They are failing to read the rules as intended. Rules as intended are not intended to allow contradictory situations(I.E. A fighter with a sword and shield dual wielding by holding a dagger in there shield arm). And the rules as they are reading them must necessarily support these contradictions.

According to you folks, i can wear and benefit from as many different armors as i want and gain benefits from both of them since non-magical armors do not take up a slot. Note that for the majority of a players career this entire negates the section of magical amors dealing with item type. You want a troll hide platemail? Just put on magical troll hide over or under mundane platemail. You get the enhancement bonus from the troll hide, the armor AC bonus from the Platemail, the light armor bonus from dex/int for wearing light armor and the special benefit of the troll hide. Wooo, congratulations, you're 2-3 AC(or more) above the guy actually playing by the rules until the late paragon tier where now still ahead by 0-1 until the late epic tier. Cost of the extra AC? 50 gp.
 

According to you folks, i can wear and benefit from as many different armors as i want and gain benefits from both of them since non-magical armors do not take up a slot. Note that for the majority of a players career this entire negates the section of magical amors dealing with item type. You want a troll hide platemail? Just put on magical troll hide over or under mundane platemail. You get the enhancement bonus from the troll hide, the armor AC bonus from the Platemail, the light armor bonus from dex/int for wearing light armor and the special benefit of the troll hide.

Actually, I think this is (mostly) correct. I do think you can wear an enchanted armor beneath and a set of mundane plate armor on top. Note though that you'd add all of the penalties from all of the armor you're wearing, and since you are wearing heavy armor, you'd lose the Int/Dex bonus to AC.

I always thought that limiting some enchantments to some armor types for just for flavor anyway.

But I suppose this all hinges on whether one thinks p. 224 refers to all benefits of all equipment, or if it only applies to the magical properties of enchanted items.
 

Actually, I think this is (mostly) correct. I do think you can wear an enchanted armor beneath and a set of mundane plate armor on top. Note though that you'd add all of the penalties from all of the armor you're wearing, and since you are wearing heavy armor, you'd lose the Int/Dex bonus to AC.

I always thought that limiting some enchantments to some armor types for just for flavor anyway.

But I suppose this all hinges on whether one thinks p. 224 refers to all benefits of all equipment, or if it only applies to the magical properties of enchanted items.

This is 4e. You do not receive a penalty for wearing heavy armor, you receive a bonus for wearing light.

If you are wearing light armor you add your int/dex to AC
If you are wearing heavy armor you do not add your int/dex to AC

The sum of +dex/int and 0 is +dex/int. So if you are wearing light armor and heavy armor you add your int/dex to AC. That or you somehow have two AC values that apply to all attacks.

Limiting enchantments to some armor types is not just flavor. Its balance. Its trade-offs between choosing one type of armor and choosing another. Just as there is a trade-off between using a shield magic, or otherwise, and using bracers.
 

If you are wearing light armor you add your int/dex to AC
If you are wearing heavy armor you do not add your int/dex to AC

I suppose it depends on how you "parse" the statements, whether they are exclusive (which I think they are), and which takes precedence.

I do actually think that RAW, if read without considering common sense, do support what you're saying - if you're allowed to wear both light and heavy armor, you would gain the Dex/Int bonus to AC, since not getting the bonus is not a penalty - just a lack of the bonus.

I do not believe this is how the rules were intended to read, though, which would lead us to two possible conclusions: you can't wear two sets of armor, even if one of them is a set of non-magical clothing (this doesn't pass the realism / common sense check); or the properties of the heavy armor take precedence over the light armor and you do not get the Dex/Int bonus to AC.

Afterthought: perhaps you're supposed to read the statements in the order in which they are applied.
1) You wear your enchanted cloth armor, you qualify for the Dex/Int bonus to AC, and you gain the magical benefit of the item slot. No further magical benefit can be gained from enchanted items in the same item slot.
2) You wear your mundane plate armor on top, and you no longer qualify for the Dex/Int bonus to AC. Not qualifying for this bonus could perhaps be called a property of the armor - not a benefit (and certainly not a magical benefit) or a penalty - which would mean it would still apply.
 
Last edited:

And qualifying for the bonus is a property of the cloth armor.

Any interpretation that does not completely remove the benefit from a mundane item leads to ridiculous results.

Another example which ive used before.

Boots of striding, +1 item bonus to speed when wearing light armor or no armor, 4,200 Gold
Battlestrider Greaves, +1 item bonus to speed when wearing Heavy armor, 13,000 Gold

any character can put on cloth armor(a light armor) for a cost of 1 GP, and save 8,800 Gold on their boots.

As far as i can tell, there are few of these problems presented. But they all key off the fact that players are expected to use only one item per slot, mundane or otherwise.

Here is an example using an item a heroic character might want to craft. They want a wand bracer that spring loads a wand to let them draw it with the same action they use it. They get a mechanical benefit from the bracer, it lets them quickdraw a wand 1/encounter(or 1/day would be a more balanced interpretation). But the bracer is not magical, its mundane.

So the wizard gets to use a shield and the bracer, or a magic bracer and that bracer he straps over the top. Now the wizard is getting quickdraw for free because he made an item non-magical.

The DM could say no, but that is a bad idea(and you could technically construe it to be against the rules, though it would be a long stretch. Certainly its against the guidelines.) because its cool when players come up with things they want and then make it happen. It empowers your players. Makes the game feel more dynamic, and really gives them a sense that they are in control of their destiny.

But it still has to conform to the rules and the economy of resources. Just as you can't get pets because it breaks the economy of action. You cant stack mundane items because it breaks the economy of resources.

When people ask for them to break these rules it makes the game go wacky, one way or another. It doesn't matter if its mundane, one slot, one benefit, end of story.
 
Last edited:

I think you're being overly dramatic.
There are plenty of places where exploitation can happen, and you're simply wrong about this rule.

Frankly, I'd be more concerned about actual cheese, such as owning dozens of Iron Rings of the Dwarf Lords.
 

Remove ads

Top