Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="NorthSaber" data-source="post: 4402737" data-attributes="member: 69975">True - but my point was that only one such property could apply at a time, like a boolean operator.   I wouldn't put it past WotC to miss something like this, which would lead to several other places in the rules having problems.   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.   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.  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.  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.</blockquote>

Verification