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

[NorthSaber]

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

True - but my point was that only one such property could apply at a time, like a boolean operator.

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

I wouldn't put it past WotC to miss something like this, which would lead to several other places in the rules having problems.

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.

This kind of thing could have been fixed by saying "+1 item bonus to speed when not wearing heavy armor", which amounts to the same thing but includes the option for having both.

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.

In the case of armors, I agree with you here. It wasn't expected, but it should've been. I knew 4e was a step away from traditional, ultra-detailed, ultra-realistic pen-and-paper-roleplaying and towards faster, simpler, more computer/console-type gaming, but I think they're taking it too far if they write the rules to exclude something like this, something physically quite possible and even realistic.

For instance, what if a mage was to enchant the cloth padding set of a plate armor? We know plate armor has such padding - unless 4e has totally ditched all historical data we have of such armor - so he should be able to wear it underneath his armor even after it was enchanted. Heck, being nude gives you the Dex/Int bonus to AC, and you don't get to keep it if you're nude underneath your heavy armor.

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.

I would say the wizard cannot use such a bracer in the same arm as a shield, since they physically occupy the same space, but I wouldn't deny it based on the item slot issue. If said wizard had a magical bracelet or an armband that isn't physically in the same place, I'd allow it.

Of course, the wizard would have to be able to design and construct such a device, and if it was possible and easy, they should be available in stores everywhere. See, I don't see mechanical reasons to deny it. We've seen all kinds of gadgets and alchemical thingamajigs in the previous editions of DnD, and I'd allow those too, given an appropriate gp cost.

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.

4e tries to oversimplify things, I suppose. If they wanted to say you can't wear cloth armor beneath plate armor, they should state it clearly in the equipment section, not hidden in a paragraph that specifically is about item slots for enchanted items, and their benefits.

The rules even say you can wear bracers and carry a shield at the same time, in the very same paragraph we've been quoting. Whether the benefits mentioned are magical or also mundane can be argued either way (and has been).

Eventually any group that doesn't allow some naturally logical things like wearing clothing underneath plate armor will run into trouble. Players will ask DMs why this is and DMs will have to either rule like I would or just shrug and say "it says so here in the book". Which one is more fun? Which one helps to keep imagining the game is real? Which one makes more sense?

I guess 4e was a big leap towards more computer-like gaming, but it seems it has tried to bridge a gap a little bit too wide here. The rules try to quantify and regulate everything exactly and flawlessly, but end up leaving many things unexplained and unspecified, up to conjecture and guesswork.

I'm sure if this gets replied in the FAQ, it will say something to the effect that you can't enchant regular clothing or armor-padding, and that you simply can't wear any actual armor set underneath another set of armor. It's where the game is headed, and they do try to simplify things.

However, the issue we began tackling was about wearing magical bracers and a shield, and the reasoning against this combo is flimsy - in my opinion. It might be interesting to hear whether anyone has changed their opinions on this issue based on this discussion, I know neither of us have.

 

[wayne62682]

Given that the thread has now gone totally off-topic from why I posted it in the first place, is it too much to ask to have someone fork a new one to debate this magic item/rules/whatever stuff?

 

[Goumindong]

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.

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"

edit: and yea, it does break things. It makes using a two handed weapon utterly useless. Since there is pretty much not ever a mechanical benefit to doing so(dual wield a bastard sword/dagger with a light shield).

 

[Goumindong]

True - but my point was that only one such property could apply at a time, like a boolean operator.

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.

For instance, what if a mage was to enchant the cloth padding set of a plate armor? We know plate armor has such padding - unless 4e has totally ditched all historical data we have of such armor - so he should be able to wear it underneath his armor even after it was enchanted. Heck, being nude gives you the Dex/Int bonus to AC, and you don't get to keep it if you're nude underneath your heavy armor.

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.

I would say the wizard cannot use such a bracer in the same arm as a shield, since they physically occupy the same space, but I wouldn't deny it based on the item slot issue. If said wizard had a magical bracelet or an armband that isn't physically in the same place, I'd allow it.

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.

The rules even say you can wear bracers and carry a shield at the same time, in the very same paragraph we've been quoting. Whether the benefits mentioned are magical or also mundane can be argued either way (and has been).

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.

Eventually any group that doesn't allow some naturally logical things like wearing clothing underneath plate armor will run into trouble. Players will ask DMs why this is and DMs will have to either rule like I would or just shrug and say "it says so here in the book". Which one is more fun? Which one helps to keep imagining the game is real? Which one makes more sense?

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.

 

[bardolph]

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

...

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."

There you go. I've now read it again, and it still says the same thing. You choose to ignore the word "magic," and you are inferring heavily if you think that the word "wear" means "gain no benefit from."

The PHB is very specific about "slots" referring only to magic items. Your arguments about wielding 20 longswords and piling plate on top of leather are just straw men.

Hey, if you really believe what you are saying, more power to you. All I can say is, good luck with your thread.

 

[NorthSaber]

(snip)

I'm continuing this over at the new topic:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?p=4403384#post4403384

 

[Benly]

This is a DM problem. Whether the adventure is purchased or home brewed its the responsibility of the DM to know his or her players and characters, and tweak the adventure so everyone has fun and feels useful.

That's one of the reasons we love playing D&D with live folks, right? Because the system is inherently and limitlessly fluid?

MrG

The problem is that unless you actively split up the party and give the strong characters strong opponents and the weak characters weak opponents, there is no way that you can keep a player who is in a similar niche to another PC but built very poorly from feeling frustrated at the fact that he is blatantly ineffective compared to his partymates.

There is no hyperoptimization in the party I am about to describe. The two "competing niche" characters were a beguiler 3/warlock 2 and a warmage 5. Now, warmage is not an optimizer's class - I've heard it described by overzealous CharOpters as a "tick on the ass of arcane casting" - but it is quite solid at what it does, which is blow things up, which coincidentally was pretty much that player's concept. The beguiler player had taken a level of warlock "so he'd have something to do against undead". The biggest problem here was that the warlock player had had bad experiences with a jackass CharOpter of the "if you don't take your PC to the bleeding edge of numbers you're a bad player and a liability to the team" variety, and so was stubborn about refusing advice from people experienced in the mechanics regarding how to make his PC able to do what he wanted him to do.

In any fighting situation, the warmage would output quite solid damage. The beguiler could plink for crappy damage; his first-level beguiler spells were largely ineffective against fifth-level foes. Socially he was quite capable (and a fantastic roleplayer despite occasionally shaky mechanics), but whenever there was combat to be had, the player would grow increasingly frustrated - he knew what he wanted his PC to be able to do and it just didn't work. It's not that the player didn't like combat, it's that he just couldn't match up to any other player despite having a strong character concept. Meanwhile, the warmage player had been fortunate enough to have a character concept ("halfling who makes things explode") for which there was a very obvious and easy fit in the rules, and one which was not a "trap". He was entirely satisfied with how combat played out, because his character did what he wanted her to: called up flaming spheres and threw around magical zappery.


If you have miraculous suggestions for how the DM should have somehow rigged encounters so that the beguiler player wouldn't have ended sessions frustrated, I'd love to hear them. In the end, the only solution that worked was an extremely friendly and supportive chat about ideas that might mechanically reflect his character ideas better than what he'd built along with an offer of a rebuild. In other words, optimization - what I like to call "white hat optimization", as opposed to the "FULL CASTER OR YOU'RE WORTHLESS" school of "black hat optimization".

 

[Shazman]

Amen and amen!

This is D&D, a pen-and-paper roleplaying game run by a live, intelligent Dungeon Master. Furthermore, the system itself is not that tough, and if the DM runs encounters according to the guidelines in the DMG, just about any party of mismatched, goofy-specced characters can still be victorious and do fine.

It's NOT end-game raiding or hardcore competitive PvP in an MMORPG.

Only in extreme situations like that is any kind of "optimizing" ever needed, for any RPG, tabletop or computer. No edition of D&D has ever needed players to optimize to succeed. No single-player D&D computer game has ever needed the player to optimize to succeed. It's just not that difficult.

It doesn't matter whether you optimize or not, because any decent DM will adjust and tailor their campaign as needed to suit the party.

Make a character, play the game, have fun. Leave "builds" and number-crunching to online PvPers and MMO raiders, who actually need to employ such powergaming to succeed.

I agree with that, but some modules or encounters are just brutal, and require most of the party to be optimized, or at least competent in order for the PC's to have a decent chance of survival without the DM fudging for them. Some groups might not mind a TPK, but it can be a real let down for others.