Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Obryn" data-source="post: 4970771" data-attributes="member: 11821">Weapons that give +2 to damage aren't flawed.&nbsp; Weapons that give +2 to attack aren't flawed.&nbsp; Armbands that give +2 to damage are, IMO, flawed.&nbsp; I'll explain below...You're missing some key details here which changed between 3.5 and 4e.&nbsp; In 4e terms, any non-weapon item which gave a universal +2 to hit, or non-armor item that gave +2 to AC would be very broken, if it stacked with weapons or armor.4e's attack roll math is quite tight - bonuses to attack rolls are about as major as you can get.&nbsp; Ditto, bonuses to AC.&nbsp; In 3.5 a +1 to hit barely matters - especially when you had attack rolls that exceeded your enemy's AC.&nbsp; Ditto, a +1 bonus to AC.&nbsp; In 4e, attack rolls pivot around the 50% mark, so every +1 represents a 10% increase in your frequency of hitting.&nbsp; (Yes, 10%; if you hit on 11-20 before, but now hit on 10-20, you hit 10% more often.)&nbsp; Your AC is similarily valuable.&nbsp; If you have any cost-free items that add to AC or Attack Rolls, and they stack with your armor or weapon, it's a problem.In comparison, bonuses to damage are much less powerful in 4e.&nbsp; You need to hit first and, in general, HPs are higher.&nbsp; This is rather immaterial to the question of the Iron Armbands, though, since I'm not arguing they're brokenly overpowered.This is still the same argument, and I still have the same reasons as above.&nbsp; And yes, part of it is because the arm slot is a secondary one, as opposed to the Big 3.&nbsp; Armbands should not be essential, and if someone wants one, there should be meaningful choices among them.-O</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Obryn, post: 4970771, member: 11821"] Weapons that give +2 to damage aren't flawed. Weapons that give +2 to attack aren't flawed. Armbands that give +2 to damage are, IMO, flawed. I'll explain below... You're missing some key details here which changed between 3.5 and 4e. In 4e terms, any non-weapon item which gave a universal +2 to hit, or non-armor item that gave +2 to AC would be very broken, if it stacked with weapons or armor. 4e's attack roll math is quite tight - bonuses to attack rolls are about as major as you can get. Ditto, bonuses to AC. In 3.5 a +1 to hit barely matters - especially when you had attack rolls that exceeded your enemy's AC. Ditto, a +1 bonus to AC. In 4e, attack rolls pivot around the 50% mark, so every +1 represents a 10% increase in your frequency of hitting. (Yes, 10%; if you hit on 11-20 before, but now hit on 10-20, you hit 10% more often.) Your AC is similarily valuable. If you have any cost-free items that add to AC or Attack Rolls, and they stack with your armor or weapon, it's a problem. In comparison, bonuses to damage are much less powerful in 4e. You need to hit first and, in general, HPs are higher. This is rather immaterial to the question of the Iron Armbands, though, since I'm not arguing they're brokenly overpowered. This is still the same argument, and I still have the same reasons as above. And yes, part of it is because the arm slot is a secondary one, as opposed to the Big 3. Armbands should not be essential, and if someone wants one, there should be meaningful choices among them. -O [/QUOTE]

Verification