When do Iron Armbands apply?

[eamon]

Well, let's take a look at what you posted...


I'm going to say, simply, only Melee attacks. "Melee" is not a keyword. It's a Range, and it's one of the four types of attack.

Not that I have a particular problem with this interpretation, but it's not clearcut. Weapons are also classified as melee or ranged. Also, from an in-game consistency standpoint, the distinction between rain of blows, rain of steel and sweeping blow doesn't make much sense (all three of them clearly involve the weapon dealing 1[W] damage - presumably via direct contact - to an enemy).

Now, since weapon focus applies to implements used as weapons, I'd say there's a fairly likely interpretation (that being quite literal and involving no common sense). But it's certainly not clearcut or obvious.

 

[Obryn]

Not that I have a particular problem with this interpretation, but it's not clearcut. Weapons are also classified as melee or ranged. Also, from an in-game consistency standpoint, the distinction between rain of blows, rain of steel and sweeping blow doesn't make much sense (all three of them clearly involve the weapon dealing 1[W] damage - presumably via direct contact - to an enemy).

So would you argue, then, that a swordmage should be able to add Iron Armbands damage to all of their close, ranged, and area attacks? The only way this works is if you claim that "melee damage" is really supposed to be read, "damage dealt by a melee weapon" in which case, the gap between implements and weapon/implements just got even wider.

Melee is pretty clearly defined as a type of attack. A close attack is not a melee attack, even if you're using a melee weapon.

Now, since weapon focus applies to implements used as weapons, I'd say there's a fairly likely interpretation (that being quite literal and involving no common sense). But it's certainly not clearcut or obvious.

Weapon Focus works the way it does because of its specific wording. It doesn't specify melee or ranged; it just says something like "using this weapon." You can use a weapon as an implement, and therefore it works. (Note, I don't particularly love this. And I'd much rather it were more specific, and even think that it would be if it were re-written today. But that's just the way it is.)

-O

 

[Hypersmurf]

Melee is pretty clearly defined as a type of attack. A close attack is not a melee attack, even if you're using a melee weapon.

Of course, the rules aren't always consistent in this respect.

For example, the rules state "Any magic light thrown or heavy thrown weapon automatically returns to its wielder’s hand after a ranged attack with the weapon is resolved."

This question appears in the FAQ: "I am using a magical thrown weapon as part of an area of effect power. If I am attacking multiple enemies within that area, do I need multiple weapons, or will one suffice?"

The answer is: "One is enough in this case. Magical thrown weapons return to you after each attack, so you’ll be able to use it against each enemy as part of using your power."

Now, we know from the rules that magical thrown weapons return to you after each ranged attack... and Ranged is a separate attack type from Melee, Close, and Area. We also know that an Area attack is a single attack that hits multiple opponents.

Nevertheless, the FAQ asserts that because magical thrown weapons "return to you after each attack", you can use one weapon against each target of an Area attack. Despite the fact that a/ an Area attack isn't a Ranged attack, and b/ 'after each attack' would mean it returns after the single Area attack is resolved on all opponents anyway.

-Hyp.

 

[eamon]

Weapon Focus works the way it does because of its specific wording. It doesn't specify melee or ranged; it just says something like "using this weapon." You can use a weapon as an implement, and therefore it works. (Note, I don't particularly love this. And I'd much rather it were more specific, and even think that it would be if it were re-written today. But that's just the way it is.)

And that's the way I see Iron armbands too: wording that indicates (though confusingly) that it applies to a particular class of attack, which makes little sense. It is what it is, but I'd hope it would have been made differently were it written today.

More reasonable would be an application to the weapon damage rolls made with melee weapons - i.e. to [W]'s with a certain class of weapon. Right now, it's just very unintuitive, just like Weapon Focus.

To be clear, this doesn't need to be a balance issue (unlike the current rules); the damage bonus could be reduced and capped to 1/round or whatever; it's just that the item distinguishes between cases that just make little sense. If you read the fluff provided, I get the idea the designers didn't much know what the item was actually supposed to do in-game either: it's literally got meta-gaming fluff.

All in all, it's a poor design.

 

[DracoSuave]

And that's the way I see Iron armbands too: wording that indicates (though confusingly) that it applies to a particular class of attack, which makes little sense. It is what it is, but I'd hope it would have been made differently were it written today.

More reasonable would be an application to the weapon damage rolls made with melee weapons - i.e. to [W]'s with a certain class of weapon. Right now, it's just very unintuitive, just like Weapon Focus.

How is it unintuitive?

Melee attacks get better. Melee attacks are attacks from melee powers.

Not hard.

The Weapon keyword and that sort of stuff is overthinking it.

Same with weapon focus. Choose a type of weapon. That tool gets a damage bonus when you use it. It doesn't matter -how- you use it. Are you using it? Yes? Have a bonus.

To be clear, this doesn't need to be a balance issue (unlike the current rules); the damage bonus could be reduced and capped to 1/round or whatever; it's just that the item distinguishes between cases that just make little sense. If you read the fluff provided, I get the idea the designers didn't much know what the item was actually supposed to do in-game either: it's literally got meta-gaming fluff.

All in all, it's a poor design.

Not at all. Iron Armbands aren't a weapon, and so have nothing to do with weapon vs implement attacks. They're only concerned with melee attacks. How accessories interact with attacks is completely irrelevant to that simple fact. And melee attacks are pretty clearly defined.

A lot of rules issues only come in when people -overthink- things through rather than simply taking stuff as it is.

 

[eamon]

How is it unintuitive?

Melee attacks get better. Melee attacks are attacks from melee powers.

It is unintuitive because it is unclear what the item represents. Sure, I can write rules for an item that, while you are a prime number of squares distant from the space you started your last turn in grants a +3 to Ref. Such an item can have a clearcut definition. Having such a clearcut definition doesn't, however, mean is expresses anything meaningful in-game.

Expressibility in mechanics does not imply meaningfulness in-game. Iron Armbands have essentially no fluff, and don't translate to any particular meaning in-game - at least as far as I can see. Since the game actively encourages you to have a particular fantasy representation of the mechanics, it's reasonable to hope that the intuition such a fantasy provides maps helpfully onto mechanics. I cannot, at least, come up with a reasonable explanation in-game why they work differently for rain of blows, rain of steel and sweeping blow.

Can you?

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Well, I don't think the problem is necessarily Iron Armbands fault - rather, the Armbands are simply revealing an incongruity that already exists in the rules.

The problem is, what basically amounts to "hitting several enemies at a time with my weapon" has different mechanics under the rules. Since the Armbands key off a particular mechanic, it produces the seemingly odd result of getting the Armband bonus for sojme whacks with your weapon and not with others.

Personally, I think its one of those situations where it is best not to try to justify it "in game", and simply recongnise that its for game balance reasons - I mean, its not like the Armbands aren't powerful enough as it is.

 

[eamon]

Well, I don't think the problem is necessarily Iron Armbands fault - rather, the Armbands are simply revealing an incongruity that already exists in the rules.

The problem is, what basically amounts to "hitting several enemies at a time with my weapon" has different mechanics under the rules. Since the Armbands key off a particular mechanic, it produces the seemingly odd result of getting the Armband bonus for sojme whacks with your weapon and not with others.

Not really. To a large extent, a close attack is simply a way of expressing a melee attack vs. all nearby targets. Clearly, you need some way of expressing the area of effect of a power, and it's a 4e simplified and standardized these. So far, so good: the distinction between close and melee (for instance) exist to serve the purpose of identifying the area of effect. There are a few other minor differences (say, one damage roll vs. many), but these seem to be largely practical simplifications without much impact to the common sense of the situation.

So, the game has a mechanic for hitting one nearby target, and it has a short-cut (and most importantly a standardized, unambiguous) mechanic for hitting multiple nearby targets. That's handy so you don't need to respecify stuff on each power. However, if you hit, it doesn't matter how the area was described. If a power deals 1[W]+Str damage, that damage is dealt regardless of how the area of effect was described. To this extent the rules are written to simply handle the aspects of area-of-effect powers.

Using such mechanical shortcuts as triggers in and of themselves however, poses problems. All of the sudden swinging a blade at all adjacent enemies somehow becomes something fundamentally distinct from swinging a blade at several adjacent enemies. It's not clear why that makes sense - and the lack of fluff on the item underlines this fuzziness.

There's a fundamental distinction between approaching rules design from the standpoint of "I want to represent and roleplay this fantasy with as simple a ruleset as possible" - whereby you expect and accept imprecisions and corner-cases in your quest to make the whole somewhat consistent - and the standpoint of "I've got this ruleset, and this effect can be described within it" - whereby you reliquish the aim to actually represent the story you're roleplaying.

This latter standpoint is deeply unfortunate. For instance, it makes DM adjudication much more complex; all of the sudden you cannot presume that there's any common sense in any particular mechanic; you can't make a quick call based on what it represents because, well, it doesn't represent anything. Where's the distinction between an unintentional and abusive cornercase you should ban and a neat tactical trick?

Most boardgames have clearcut rules; anything in them is fair game. This works because such rules are short and consistent. D&D, by contrast, uses a hugely complex rule system. It's not assumed that every possible rule interaction is balanced, reasonable or even consistent. That's OK not only because there's an arbiter but more basically because everyone essentially understands what the rules are trying to achieve. After a high-jump, you first fall back down to the ground and can then jump again - you can't jump 10 ft high and then jump again mid air to reach 20ft - why? Not because this scenario is clearly described in the rules.

They even explicitly suggest that effects that don't make sense should just be refluffed until they do. You can drop an ooze prone, though it's not clear what that means. Can I refluff two consecutive jumps?

To be able to play a game like D&D, in which the rules aren't limited, predictable and consistent, it's very helpful to have some measuring stick; some guideline that helps determine what goes and what doesn't.

Because the divide between fluff and mechanics is so large, players are enticed to thinking in terms of mechanics and not fluff. When the rules get confusing and don't clearly map to any in-game situation it's no longer about what your character can do, it's about applying rules without regard for what it represents. In a cave, the halfling will happily move through the prone gelatinous cube, but his player needs to look up whether he can move through the bat swam. Can the tiefling completely ignore the fire-damage dealing monster behind him to avoid being flanked by it and giving another monster (that can hurt him) CA? Can the blind cleric heal his friend without knowing exactly where he is? There's very little common sense; it's just knowing the (complex) rules, and they compete for attention with the narrative to the detriment of the game.

Personally, I think its one of those situations where it is best not to try to justify it "in game", and simply recongnise that its for game balance reasons - I mean, its not like the Armbands aren't powerful enough as it is.

Well, the balance problem is easy to fix just by making the item weaker. In any case what you say is how I would run it if absolutely necessary. But the more of these kind of inconsistencies crop up, the harder it gets to avoid either making inconsistent rules (which are unpredictable, unfun, and unfair to players), unreasonable rulings (since it's much harder to determine what's reasonable if it's not clear what a certain effect actually is), or discussions about rulings. I've definitely seen many more at-the-table rule discussions in 4e than in 3.5; and that's not because the mechanics of 4e are more complex; it's because it's unclear what they're trying to do.

So, I'd much appreciate it if mechanics had a clear purpose and fluff. If the best way to use a rule is to ignore what it means in-game, you're dealing with a tricky rule that will lead to trouble and that undermines the core role-playing fantasy aspect of the game. Maybe you can't avoid all such rules - but I'm sure you can avoid it for optional items.

 

[Starfox]

There's a fundamental distinction between approaching rules design from the standpoint of "I want to represent and roleplay this fantasy with as simple a ruleset as possible" - whereby you expect and accept imprecisions and corner-cases in your quest to make the whole somewhat consistent - and the standpoint of "I've got this ruleset, and this effect can be described within it" - whereby you reliquish the aim to actually represent the story you're roleplaying.

This latter standpoint is deeply unfortunate...

While I agree with the last statement you make in my quote from a values perspective, I think its how 4E is designed to be played. At heart, 4E is a game, not a simulation. I guess that's why so many people have a problem with it.

 

[eamon]

While I agree with the last statement you make in my quote from a values perspective, I think its how 4E is designed to be played. At heart, 4E is a game, not a simulation. I guess that's why so many people have a problem with it.

It's not just a matter of preference, however - there's clearly a tradeoff to be made between "simulation accuracy" and rules simplicity, afterall, so I understand that each edition finds its own equilibrium there. The gamist rule-centric view in favor of simple rules is a fine option - it becomes problematic when they give up any sense of in-game meaning. This is problematic because the game is so very, very complex, and because the rules are invariable inconsistent and/or ambiguous because of it. That's why there's a DM - not just to provide a story, but also to run it and make quick judgements about those rules imperfections. But, if rules don't have any meaning, how is the DM to rule... and how can players guess what he'll say?

There's no big problem with extremely simplistic simulation, but there is a problem for a common-sense adjudicated game when rules don't have any sense. Not to mention the roleplaying issues with using powers that are merely some creative combination of number games.

Most powers and items don't have this kind of problem (which isn't limited to 4e, though admittedly it seems more visible now). I don't think it's anything inherent in this edition anyhow; at worst it's a more common design flaw due to the shifted focus. In any case, it's a shame whenever it happens.