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



## wayne62682 (Jul 26, 2008)

> Wotc should learn to start advocating simple yet good and effective builds which actually work, rather than traps (ie: stuff which sound good on paper but stink in actual gameplay) like *great-weapon fighter* or paragon multiclassing. It is like you are already lame in one foot, and are intent on shooting yourself in the other!




Emphasis mine.  I'm curious why this is considered a trap; great weapon used to be the only way to play a Fighter in 3.x.  Did that change for 4e?  I was going to be making a Dragonborn Fighter who uses a glaive, so if it's a "trap" then I'm really interested in why so I don't gimp myself (especially seeing as I'm going to be the party's only defender)


----------



## Gort (Jul 26, 2008)

I dunno, didn't we find in the "damage per round" thread that great weapon fighters outdamaged every other class in the paragon tier (using that stance that lets you hit everyone adjacent to you for 1[W])?

I think people might consider it a trap because it makes a trade-off that makes the fighter worse at his "job" - attracting attacks and withstanding them. The logic is probably that if you want to do lots of damage in melee, play a rogue.


----------



## Cadfan (Jul 26, 2008)

The Great Weapon Fighter is fine.  It just seems like a trap if you choose to fight with a greatsword, because the bastard sword + shield combo is better and doesn't cost very much.  If you choose a con based weapon with a high damage die, you'll have extra durability to make up for your lower ac, and you'll deal more damage per round.  Its an ok trade.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 26, 2008)

This is one of the things that will only be settled in time.

Right now, many are suggesting that the shield bonus is much better than the extra damage you get from a THW. Its a perfectly valid hypothesis, but its something only time will tell.

I will say that if we look at experience, many of the assumptions made about 3e in its opening months were wrong. The most common one was that the monk was overpowered. Many people, including myself, took a look at the monk's list of abilities and immediately declared them hokey broken. With time, not only was this proven to be false, the monk was actually determined to by one of the weakest classes.


----------



## Nifft (Jul 26, 2008)

wayne62682 said:


> Emphasis mine.  I'm curious why this is considered a trap; great weapon used to be the only way to play a Fighter in 3.x.  Did that change for 4e?  I was going to be making a Dragonborn Fighter who uses a glaive, so if it's a "trap" then I'm really interested in why so I don't gimp myself (especially seeing as I'm going to be the party's only defender)



 Yes, it did change.

1/ Tide of Iron is probably the best Fighter at-will, and it requires the use of a shield.

2/ Reach weapons no longer threaten. Until you have Polearm Gamble (a Paragon feat), there's not much use in them for a Fighter. You don't get full use out of your Mark unless you're adjacent.

3/ Power Attack used to be taken by everyone, and made two-handed weapons very dangerous. Now, it just sucks, and should never be taken by anyone.

4/ Two-handed weapons used to be as accurate as one-handed weapons. Now, swords are +3 to attack, polearms and mauls are +2.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## wayne62682 (Jul 26, 2008)

Hmm... I see.

So it looks like sword+board is the way to go now, especially when one is the only defender in the party amidst two strikers (rogue, archery ranger), a controller (wizard) and a leader (cleric).


----------



## Mengu (Jul 26, 2008)

If I was playing a fighter, I would go with the sword and board. It's mainly because, like others have mentioned, the defender role is better played with this build. However if you have a paladin in your party, or two fighters, one of them using the great weapon build could be interesting as well.

So it kind of depends on party composition. If you are the only defender who needs to protect all the squishies, guardian build is better. If your party is weak on Strikers, Great Weapon fighter can play the role of a pseudo striker, especially teamed up with a Tactical Warlord.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (Jul 26, 2008)

Play what you want to play, not what some stupid numbers say you "should" play.


----------



## Ginnel (Jul 26, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:


> Play what you want to play, not what some stupid numbers say you "should" play.




I agree in principle but see the note further down

On a seperate note though a feat called two handed weapon defence for +1 shield bonus to AC would be great 

The reason I dislike optimising is that everyone has to keep up with the optimiser to feel useful in combat, otherwise you get encounters that the non optimised can't handle or encounters that the optimiser just walks through.
I feel 4th edition has handled this better because as far as I can tell the difference between optimised and non optimised has been reduced.

Note: this does not mean I like having "useless" characters about, a 4th ed fighter class with 12 Str 10 Dex 8 Con 16 Int 15 Wis 17 Cha would seem pointless to me in a game with regular combat.
I would expect a class to have at least a 16 in their primary attack stat 15 at a minimum. 
If you wanted to play a weak fighter type character thats perfectly fine describe him as weak but still have that 16 in str defeating enemies with his dexterity maybe, or even better have a look at rogue/paladin and see if you can fit your concept into those, but don't bring a deliberately mechanically weak participant to a combat focused game.


----------



## firesnakearies (Jul 26, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:


> Play what you want to play, not what some stupid numbers say you "should" play.




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.




Aria Silverhands said:


> Play what you want to play, not what some stupid numbers say you "should" play.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jul 26, 2008)

Why the distaste for optimizers?  If you don't like to optimize, then don't do it.  If someone is having fun playing D&D by trying to optimize their character, then let them.  What makes you think your way of playing is better than anyone else?

As someone else mentioned in another thread, there certainly are certain degrees of optimization.  In fact, you'd have to go out of your way to build a character that isn't optimized in some fashion.


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Jul 26, 2008)

The argument could be made that a great weapon fighter does the defender roll better by drawing more attacks because he does more damage and weaker defenses (though still good defenses and more HP/surges than most chars).


----------



## Krensus (Jul 26, 2008)

RigaMortus2 said:


> Why the distaste for optimizers?  If you don't like to optimize, then don't do it.  If someone is having fun playing D&D by trying to optimize their character, then let them.  What makes you think your way of playing is better than anyone else?




QFT.  I enjoy playing a min/max style of character and juicing out every advantage I can.  Maybe that makes me a munchkin, but it's what I like.  Every character is optimized in some way, otherwise we could just roll a dice to decide class, race, powers, and feats.  Some people take it to extremes and analyze their effectiveness, and I don't think there should be the disdain for them that's obviously present in several threads here.


----------



## FadedC (Jul 26, 2008)

Part of the problem is just that a superior version of a longsword exists, but there are no superior 2 handed weapons (other then the very specialized spiked chain). If this is changed in the martial handbook it will help make 2-handed fighters better. Though in my opinion, sword and shield will still be better.


----------



## Ginnel (Jul 26, 2008)

RigaMortus2 said:


> Why the distaste for optimizers? If you don't like to optimize, then don't do it. If someone is having fun playing D&D by trying to optimize their character, then let them. What makes you think your way of playing is better than anyone else?
> 
> As someone else mentioned in another thread, there certainly are certain degrees of optimization. In fact, you'd have to go out of your way to build a character that isn't optimized in some fashion.




Have a look at my above post as to why I dislike optimising, the pressure of having to keep up with the optimisers, otherwise it brings a difficulty in making encounters which are challenging to the optimiser but won't kill the weaker party members.

This is part of the reason I enjoy 4th Edition with its more equal/balanced approach, its hard to attain Defences or attack rolls which are 10 or more above a fellow party members.

Your second point yes it is hard to build a non optimised character you'd have to go out of your way by picking irrelevent stats for the class/multiclass you are playing, picking powers/skills/feats that don't work for you can always be changed through retraining.


----------



## r0gershrubber (Jul 26, 2008)

As I see it, other than having different powers available, the real difference between S&B and 2H is the absence of a shield and increasing your damage by about 1 point.  Although I suspect the AC bump is slightly more attractive, it's not a big deal.  What matters more, IMO, are the powers you plan to use.

The bastard sword is irrelevant, because either build gains a point of damage using it since it is versatile.  On the other hand, the only real reason to use the greatsword over a two-handed longsword is that the critical hit damage is slightly higher; the average damage is the same otherwise.

(Unless I misunderstand how Fighter Weapon Talent works; I assume it is based on how a weapon is wielded rather than which class it falls in.)


----------



## renau1g (Jul 26, 2008)

Krensus said:


> QFT.  I enjoy playing a min/max style of character and juicing out every advantage I can.  Maybe that makes me a munchkin, but it's what I like.  Every character is optimized in some way, otherwise we could just roll a dice to decide class, race, powers, and feats.  Some people take it to extremes and analyze their effectiveness, and I don't think there should be the disdain for them that's obviously present in several threads here.




Good for you, would you like a cookie...  (just kidding, at least you admit it) 

As for optimized, etc. if you want to play optimized, min-maxed go for it, I don't think the others are saying you can't play like that, it's just that every character will be the same... same spells, same abilities, same gear, you get the idea. And for most people that gets stale, but if that's how you get enjoyment from D&D (by 'beating' the game) then I (& others) shouldn't tell you thats wrong.

However, the OP suggesting that he had an idea for a character, but that it might not be as min/maxed (assumption!) as the single weapon fighter , is something I'm not impressed with. As others have said D&D is about having fun and enjoying your PC. If your character is missing every attack, that's probably not fun (which is why I won't make a gnome barbarian with an 8 to STR). Also, if you talk to your DM and you really like a build, work something out, house rule some feats, etc. that let you take OA's at reach, or mark enemies you hit from 10'. I don't think any of the classes in 4e are gimped (from what I've seen), the way you could gimp a 3.5e character by multi-classing poorly (one of my player's wanted a MC wizard/fighter/monk/bard/druid.....I managed to convince him that he should have a little more focus)


----------



## Andur (Jul 26, 2008)

A reach weapon is overall better than sword and board for a fighter when it comes to choice.  Simply put a reach fighter gets a greater degree of choice on who he marks.  He also gets more flexibility with the many attacks he gets that have Secondary Target:  Any enemy adjacent to the Primary Target.

Since reach weapons are equally effective for adjacent squares as one handed weapons and you also get the additional option of another square of range with any non Burst powers, the tradeoff is about right.


----------



## FadedC (Jul 26, 2008)

r0gershrubber said:


> The bastard sword is irrelevant, because either build gains a point of damage using it since it is versatile. On the other hand, the only real reason to use the greatsword over a two-handed longsword is that the critical hit damage is slightly higher; the average damage is the same otherwise.




Well that's not quite accurate because many attacks do multiple weapon dice, but versatile weapons only get +1 damage total on these. As a result it's usually much better to be doing d10 then do be doing d8+1. This is what makes the bastard sword feat a much better deal for 1 handed users.


----------



## Puggins (Jul 26, 2008)

Nifft said:


> 3/ Power Attack used to be taken by everyone, and made two-handed weapons very dangerous. Now, it just sucks, and should never be taken by anyone.




... Really?  I disagree.

Say you're playing a 12th level fighter, Str20, +3 weapon, weapon focus.

Basic Damage with Great Maul: 2d6 + 5 + 3 + 2 = 2d6 +10

With Power Attack:

For all at-wills and other 1[w] attacks:
If you normally need a 9+ to hit, you hit 17% less often and deal 24% more damage.
If you normally need an 11+ to hit, you hit 20% less often and deal 24% more damage.
If you normally need a 13+ to hit, you hit 25% less often and deal 24% more damage.

For all 2[w] attacks:
You're now doing 17% more damage instead of 24%

So you more or less break even on a 13+ and you're doing more damage on anything less than that, meaning that Power Attack will be quite effective against Brutes and fairly effective against anyone who isn't a soldier.  If you have a warlord in the party, Power Attack becomes standard most of the time.

Seems to me that power attack is an upgrade to your 1[w] attacks and becomes very desirable if you start getting bonuses to hit.  I fail to see how this is useless.


----------



## firesnakearies (Jul 26, 2008)

I don't have a problem with "optimizing" (as we call it these days) per se.  I really don't.  I, myself, am an oldschool powergamer and rules lawyer who has always loved to really dig into the mechanics and figure out how to construct highly combat-effective characters.

However, I'm a roleplayer before that.  My friends and I back in the day had a slogan about character creation, "Build 'em like a powergamer, but play 'em like a roleplayer."  The premise which I've always embodied in my gaming career is that you can create a fairly min/maxed character and still imbue that character with plenty of background, personality, and other RP goodness.

What I do have a problem with is the level, amount, and tone of the _communication_ about the subject by the hardcore "optimizer" crowd.  Partially, I blame the massive growth and popularization of the Internet, online communities, and vast amounts of forum discourse on every possible subject for this.  But mostly, I blame the rise of MMORPGs, especially the elements of intense competitive PvP and extremely challenging raid content.  I think that these factors engendered a change in the entire set of expectations, presuppositions, and ways of communicating about RP gaming.

It comes down to what I'm going to call "powergaming proselytization".  (New term coined, right here and now!)  It's no longer enough for the min/maxers to quietly go about making their uber character, not announcing the fact, not showing off their optimized build, and not presuming for a moment to tell anyone else how to make their own character.  Now, the powergamers feel compelled to widely trumpet their ideas and formulae for the "ultimate" character, for maximal "efficiency" and so forth.  Worse, they very often decide that it's their duty to "inform" any other gamer who is not so "optimal", to tell them how to build their character, to criticize and deride the "subpar" choices that their fellows have made, and to essentially browbeat everyone else into playing in whatever they feel is the "right" way.

They're proselytizers, beating the gospel of powergaming truth into the thick skulls of the ignorant heathens who still just want to make a fun, if mediocre, character that they'll enjoy playing.  They want to _convert_ everyone else who plays with them, or who they discuss the game with, into fellow min/maxers, and they can be downright pushy, even rude.  The problem is that newer gamers, or more casual ones, or more roleplay-focused ones, get bombarded with all of this stentorian advice (and ridicule if that advice isn't heeded), so that either sets their own perceptions of how they "should" be playing, or it makes them uncomfortable playing alongside someone who can't help but suggest (repeatedly) that they're a bad player, or a useless character, or what have you.

This is dragging down the hobby as a whole, causing a lot of arguments, a lot of conflict, a lot of _misinformation_, and a lot of corruption of newer players' baseline views of the game and what it's ultimately about.  I can tell you that the next time I'm running a game for a new group and Mr. Optimizer looks over Ms. Newgirl's character sheet and starts rattling off all of the things which are "wrong" and "useless" and telling her how she SHOULD build her character, and suppressing her natural creative inclinations under the fallacious pretense that she "needs" to play a certain way, and make her character as "efficient" as possible . . . the next time I see that happening, I'll be putting the kibosh on that _right_ away.

I don't want people to abandon "optimizing" if that's how they like to play.  But I do want them to stop shoving it down everyone else's throat.  I do want them to quiet down about their ultimate gems of min/maxing wisdom a little bit, and stop shouting down every other player with their intimidating claims about what is absolutely "right", "best", "necessary" or "viable" - in their personal opinion.

I just want to see less _powergaming proselytization _going on, and more friendly, respectful, open-minded gameplay, cooperation, and discussion.

That's all.


----------



## Fate Lawson (Jul 26, 2008)

*amen!*


----------



## Mengu (Jul 26, 2008)

Why do people keep drawing analogies between roleplaying and numbers on a sheet of paper? Roleplaying has very little to do with those numbers. And 4th edition pretty much made sure of that.

The numbers are used to resolve conflicts.

Everything else is roleplaying.

One does not negate the other.

So, if you want to be effective in combat, you work around a concept and pick the powers you think will work nicely. Call it min-maxing, power gaming, munchkinizing, optimization, or common sense, it doesn't matter. It will not affect how your character interacts with the world once you put the dice down.

People *should* listen to character building advice. The reason they are asking is because they have an idea, but aren't quite sure how to make it work within the rules framework. It is not helpful to tell them "play what you want." Encounters are designed to be balanced for reasonably built characters. They're not designed to work for a bunch of ignorant clowns.

However, once you get the numbers down, if it suits your campaign, there is nothing to stop you from acting like a clown as you fight, twisting your opponent's nose for 13 points of damage, or blowing raspberries at them when you miss with a Reaping Strike for 3 points of damage.

Roleplaying and optimization can (and do) exist in the same game.


----------



## FadedC (Jul 26, 2008)

Agreed, the only time optimization and roleplaying conflict is when there  is a conflict between the most efficient choice, and the choice that is most apropriate for your character. Though in most cases it's reasonable to assume that your character wants to do everything he can to maximixe his chance of winning (given that the consequences of failure for him are far more severe then for the player).

The only time your likely to have an efficiency conflict in 4e is when you have a character theme you want to stick to no matter what (ie ice mage). A character theme is not the same thing as roleplaying (in fact taken to extreme, it's often poor roleplaying). But it is still important and fun to some people, and shouldn't be discouraged too much.


----------



## Leatherhead (Jul 26, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> It comes down to what I'm going to call "powergaming proselytization".  (New term coined, right here and now!)  It's no longer enough for the min/maxers to quietly go about making their uber character, not announcing the fact, not showing off their optimized build, and not presuming for a moment to tell anyone else how to make their own character.  Now, the powergamers feel compelled to widely trumpet their ideas and formulae for the "ultimate" character, for maximal "efficiency" and so forth.  Worse, they very often decide that it's their duty to "inform" any other gamer who is not so "optimal", to tell them how to build their character, to criticize and deride the "subpar" choices that their fellows have made, and to essentially browbeat everyone else into playing in whatever they feel is the "right" way.



There is a great deal of irony in this post, considering how much negativity is displayed against powergamers.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Jul 26, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> I don't have a problem with "optimizing" (as we call it these days) per se.  I really don't.  I, myself, am an oldschool powergamer and rules lawyer who has always loved to really dig into the mechanics and figure out how to construct highly combat-effective characters.
> 
> However, I'm a roleplayer before that.  My friends and I back in the day had a slogan about character creation, "Build 'em like a powergamer, but play 'em like a roleplayer."  The premise which I've always embodied in my gaming career is that you can create a fairly min/maxed character and still imbue that character with plenty of background, personality, and other RP goodness.





Nicely stated. I have an mantra in our group "I'm a reformed power-gamer" - and what I mean by that was the exact thing you mentioned. I love system mastery and building really effective characters, but they are played as characters, which great deal of personality.
Sigging the slogan - in multiple boards.


----------



## Nifft (Jul 26, 2008)

Lord Mhoram said:


> Nicely stated. I have an mantra in our group "I'm a reformed power-gamer" - and what I mean by that was the exact thing you mentioned. I love system mastery and building really effective characters, but they are played as characters, which great deal of personality.



 This is what I call Stage 3, back when I wrote this. (Note that it was written during 3.5e; I need to update it for 4e compatibility.)

- - -

Stage 1: Naive -- player exhibits ignorance of mechanical implications, and makes choices that are mechanically poor -- "My character is tough, so I will take Toughness!"

Stage 2: System Mastery -- player understands the system's mechanics, and makes character choices tailored to exploit mechanical advantages -- "I'm a spiked-chain trip master. Oh, you meant my character's name? Uh..."

Stage 3: Character Mastery -- player understands the system's mechanics, and uses the mechanics to make the character he wants, and to make his concept effective -- "You have chosen the wrong opponent, knave! For I am Ser Reginald Ulsterworthy, and it is no idle boast to say I am the paramount master of the rapier in His Blessed Majesty's dominion!"

*Summary:*
Stage 1 -- concept, no mechanics.
Stage 2 -- mechanics drive concept.
Stage 3 -- mechanics serve concept.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Benly (Jul 27, 2008)

Talking from a perspective of an optimizer and roleplayer (yeah, I multiclassed early), the problem isn't players punishing other players for choosing the characters they want. I've never seen that done for optimization reasons; the only time I've seen that done was a jerk who had a personal mad-on for elves and would constantly rag on anyone who wanted to play an elf or half-elf.

The problem is when people say "Oh, I'm a roleplayer, I won't optimize or ask for advice" and the _system_ punishes them. I've seen a lot of these people end up frustrated because, D&D being designed as it was in 3.x, the beguiler 3/warlock 1 ends up being able to do all of nothing against the encounters in the module. It's not fun for him, and it doesn't make him an inherently better roleplayer than the people whose builds actually work. "Play What You Want To Play" is fine as far as it goes, but as it happens sometimes what you want to play isn't what looks like the thing you want to play on your first glance over the rulebooks. (e.g. "I want to play a big strong tough guy! I should take Toughness and Great Fortitude!")


----------



## wayne62682 (Jul 27, 2008)

OP here.  Thanks everyone for chiming in on the thread, although it's gone off on a little bit of a tangent.

My concern in this thread wasn't  because I feel the need to optimize, but more that I don't want to be ineffective.  Maybe I still have the 3.5 mindset, but I've had several bad experiences where I've chosen "concept" over "effectiveness", and those times have always resulted in me sitting around twiddling my thumbs because I can't contribute anything meaningful to the group.

My original concept was a "canon" Dragonborn (i.e. proud, honrable, military bent), who was using what amounted to a "Weapon of Legacy" (this part requires DM approval, of course); a glaive used by an illustrious ancestor centuries ago at the fall of Arkhosia, the Dragonborn Empire.  The optimization part of it was largely picking feats/abilities that meshed well with the concept, not optimization like you'd find on the Wizards CO boards (that sort of optimization appals me, truth me told).  

After giving it some thought (and yes, I admit it's partly because I read that using a 2H weapon is "a trap"), I'm considering a sword & board character for two main reasons (one being flavor, one being rules):

#1: AC is better than damage, since I know that the party has a Dwarf Cleric (Leader), Eladrin Ranger (Striker), Eladrin Rogue (Striker) and Eladrin Wizard (Controller), but not a defender in sight (There was a Dwarf Fighter, but the player dropped out).  Also, except for myself, the DM and another player who is the Eladrin Rogue, the other three are completely new to D&D and roleplaying.  This means that I can't bank on much teamwork and cooperation, simply because it might be new to them and they're learning the rules.  Therefore, as a defender I think being "sticky" might be the better choice to better work with the group, to help foster teamwork.

#2: The way magic items work in 4E, I would need to get the DM to do some kind of weird house rule in order for my concept to work, since he's using his ancestor's glaive and would never, ever get rid of it in favor of another item.  4E seems to assume that you'll pick up/discard weapons as better ones come along.  While I'm sure that it wouldn't be a problem to house rule, and would'nt be unbalanced (I would still pay the gold to enchant the item, just it would be the _same_ item, instead of a new one), I am only just joining the group so I don't want to seem too imposing or look like a "spotlight hog" by demanding special rules for my character.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 27, 2008)

wayne62682 said:


> My concern in this thread wasn't because I feel the need to optimize, but more that I don't want to be ineffective.




I don't think you have that worry in 4e yet. It may be that some ultra-optimisers would consider a two handed fighter to be ineffective, but for the vast majority of players I think that it will probably remain an interesting and fun option which isn't ineffective.

Cheers


----------



## firesnakearies (Jul 27, 2008)

Besides which, out of every two-hander you could use, the glaive is the best.  Polearm Gamble and Heavy Blade Opportunity are sexy!


----------



## Cadfan (Jul 27, 2008)

1. I have no problem with optimizing or not optimizing, in general.  

1a. In 3e, I think everyone basically understands the power curve and how to break it, so I have a problem with people who break it because they're essentially violating an unwritten rule of cooperative social gaming- the rule being, "Given that we know this system is breakable, and that the game is less fun for everyone else if one of us breaks it, we shouldn't break the system."

1b. 4e may hit that point, but it hasn't yet.

1c. I do have a problem with... certain persons on this forum who I won't name for CoC reasons... who take reasonable but minor points about optimization and inflate them into MASSIVE ISSUES, especially when they do so by declaring certain aspects of a character's build to somehow not count.

2. Great weapon fighters are just fine.  Its greatsword fighters who have balance problems.  For a weapon other than a heavy blade, great weapon is often the way to go.  You get higher damage dice, the fact that Con is usually your secondary stat mitigates your lower AC, you have no armor check penalty, you don't have to invest in a secondary weapon, and you can use Reaping Strike as your default attack, thereby increasing your average damage output quite noticeably versus lone targets.


----------



## Runestar (Jul 27, 2008)

If you have something to say in my face, just say it out loud and not beat about the bush. List those issues out 1 by 1 and I will do my best to answer them.


----------



## Zelc (Jul 27, 2008)

I was actually looking at making a Fighter for PvP in the Core Coliseum on the official boards, and I noticed how much spike damage a Great Maul can put out.  With a Bugbear, the Great Maul does 9 average damage compared with the Bastard Sword's 6.5, and will pretty much 1-shot any level 1 character with Brute Strike.


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 27, 2008)

wayne62682 said:


> #1: AC is better than damage, since I know that the party has a Dwarf Cleric (Leader), Eladrin Ranger (Striker), Eladrin Rogue (Striker) and Eladrin Wizard (Controller), but not a defender in sight (There was a Dwarf Fighter, but the player dropped out). Also, except for myself, the DM and another player who is the Eladrin Rogue, the other three are completely new to D&D and roleplaying. This means that I can't bank on much teamwork and cooperation, simply because it might be new to them and they're learning the rules. Therefore, as a defender I think being "sticky" might be the better choice to better work with the group, to help foster teamwork.





Not in the slightest. In fact, great weapon fighters are usually stickier for the greater part of their career than sword and board fighters.

Why? Because fighters have two methods of keeping enemies close.

1. Abilities

2. Deterrence

For the most part, abilities are about equal. Everyone can take abilities that defend more or less equally with a few exceptions.

Exceptions: 
15 dex + sword/board heavy blade fighters with deep feat investments.
Stalwart Guard: Utility Power better with Shield.
Interposing Shield: Utility Power better with Shield.

Why?

Tide of Iron: At-Will Push is very very strong, used correctly you can prevent attacks against friendlies. At-Will Push during an OA is just amazing.

Shield Push: Combat Challenge Push... even better.
Distracting Shield: -2 penalty becomes -4 penalty to their attack if you hit. Pretty useful.

But the second part great weapon fighters clean up. Especially high wisdom great weapon fighters. The last thing you want your DM thinking is "ill just provoke this OA, its not a big deal, eat the damage from the basic attack and go on with what the monster wanted to do"

When you do that against a sword and board it takes a lot of investments to make up for the fact that the maul fighter is going to be walloping 2.5 average damage ahead of you before his significant feat advantage. 

If you have a warlord, the great weapon fighter really starts to show his superiority as the warlord grants basic attacks. Now the great weapon fighter averages 2.5 damage/hit more and gets to make more attacks a round, building up each time.

Add in Power Attack, which is a positively awesome feat for a great weapon fighter since his attack bonus with an OA should be very high due to decent wisdom, combat reflexes and maybe Blade Opportunity. Now its 3 average damage a hit in the heroic tier(assuming greatsword now since a maul doesn't qualify for blade op), 2 in the paragon, 4 in the epic.

You don't have a shield and that lets you concentrate further on deterrence, picking up bracer's of mighty striking for another 2/4/6 average damage. 

Add in Potent Challenge and it can get even nastier(assuming the sword/board cannot afford PA with all the feats they need). Now all of a sudden an combat challenge in the paragon tier doesn't look like 1d10(bastard sword)+6+3+2= 16.5(at 50% hit rate,8.25 normalized) average it looks like 2d6+6+5+3+1+6+4+2= 34(at 40% hit rate average damage, 13.6 normalized, 14 normalized with no power attack, this will favor PA the more your attack increases, does not factor in hammer rhythm which which puts the average up to 15.6 and 16.5). Which is nearly twice as potent a deterrent as it was for the sword and board fighter. An OA would look like, 16.5 on the sword and board side and 29 on the great weapon side. With averages of 8.25 and 11.6.

Either way, the great weapon fighter is coming way ahead in deterrence. And that is just what you want. Getting beat on is no big deal, you're a fighter, have lots of hit points, have plenty of feats to increase your hit points, increase your healing surge values, and increase your defenses.

There are even synergies with weapons. E.G. a berserker weapon makes you easy to hit in exchange for more damage and attack. A great weapon fighter is likely to have a high con. Which stacks nicely with even low level utility powers like Boundless Endurance or Unstoppable. 

Sword and board fighters cannot quickdraw a throwing weapon to participate in warlord ranged attacks without dropping their main weapon. They cannot use a throwing weapon to mark ranged enemies that they cannot make it too without dropping their main weapon either.

And then there is the hidden bonus. Your AC is lower. Your job is to get hit so that everyone else doesn't get hit. You have lots of hit points, a high healing surge value and are pretty durable. A high AC fighter makes enemies want to hit something with a lower AC. A low AC fighter that makes hitting the high AC players even harder with a mark and punishes them harder for disobeying is even more likely to draw attacks rather than let enemies simply take the penalty.




> Point #2




Pick the feat: Ritual Caster and then just keep enchanting the weapon to your specifications as you go along. Or have the party Wizard do it.



> Its greatsword fighters who have balance problems.




There is nothing wrong with greatsword fighters. They get all the benefits of great weapon fighters in deterrence and all the awesomeness of blade opportunity/heavy blade op. For a meager investment of 13 dex they are at +3 for OAs(blade op, and combat reflexes) and can concentrate on either Wisdom to make those OAs even more potent(hit more, go to pit fighter for even better OA specialization), for an investment of 14 dex they can make OAs with at wills as well, though this is less valuable since they won't be needing sure strike, and can't use tide of iron.

Greatsword fighters also get more use out of Cleric Multi-classing. Take something like an Elf(Elves make amazing fighters with their shifting through difficult terrain and high movement, and elvish re-roll, and this elf great weapon build works really well with pit fighters as well). Start with 12 base dex and as much wisdom as you can after getting your strength right(You can run 16 str, 18 wis, 15 dex after racial bonuses pretty easily, harder to change your str up to 18 though, but 18,15,15 is possible, or 18,16,13 if you don't want Heavy Blade Op until Epic and no Heavy Blade Spec). Pick up combat reflexes, blade opportunity, heavy blade opportunity and pump strength and wisdom.

Multi-class into paragon warpriest. Make up slightly for that shield with the AC bonus. Get Warpriests Challenge which is a SECOND combat challenge/round as an OA that doesn't need to be replenished every round!(which might even be more than one extra since you can OA once/turn, and if the enemy attempts to move via a friendlies ability you can hit him again). Did i mention that we are pumping wisdom because fighters get their wisdom mod added to OA attacks and it stops movement?

You also get some friendly healing, an amazing self heal, and battle pyres, a close burst 5(marks an 11x11 square!) enemy only that does ongoing damage, great single target damage(so long as you hit something), and can be sustained for great single target damage so long as any enemy hasn't yet made its save(oh, and another mark).

Did i mention that you need either to be able to quickdraw your implement to make this valuable and sword/board cannot do that, or a holy avenger in order to get decent use out of the two attacks?

Short Answer:

There is nothing wrong with great weapon fighters

There is nothing wrong with greatsword fighters, not ever in the slightest, not only are their multi-classing/paragon options very very sticky(and probably much better at defending than most fighter paragons), but heavy blades easily have the best feats for fighters(and sticky fighters) and only greatsword fighters of the great weapon fighters get to take advantage of those.


----------



## blargney the second (Jul 27, 2008)

My minotaur maul fighter is a heck of a lot of fun, and pretty solid to boot.  His basic attack does almost as much damage as the rogue's sneak attack.
-blarg


----------



## Ginnel (Jul 27, 2008)

a Couple of corrections



Goumindong said:


> Did i mention that you need either to be able to quickdraw your implement to make this valuable and sword/board cannot do that, or a holy avenger in order to get decent use out of the two attacks?



for a priest they do not need to wield an implement at all just have it around their neck or wherever they fancy (Page 62 of PHB for reference)



Goumindong said:


> Short Answer:
> 
> There is nothing wrong with great weapon fighters
> 
> There is nothing wrong with greatsword fighters, not ever in the slightest, not only are their multi-classing/paragon options very very sticky(and probably much better at defending than most fighter paragons), but heavy blades easily have the best feats for fighters(and sticky fighters) and only greatsword fighters of the great weapon fighters get to take advantage of those.



The Glavie is a heavy blade with reach, The Falchion a heavy blade with high crit (Page 218)

P.S. I'm playing a fighter who has chosen the two-handed weapon proficiency but is using Longsword and heavy shield at the moment until he can find a two handed weapon he likes then he'll get quick draw and be able to swap between the two but still have the same total attack bonus (the two hander is most likely going to have +2 proficiency bonus)


----------



## bardolph (Jul 27, 2008)

If you already have a good sword and board paladin or fighter, a 2H fighter becomes a more attractive choice, since you can mark when you need to, or just go all out damage if the board defender is holding the line.

Strikers are great, but Rogue basic melee attack is weak.  2H fighters have the strongest basic attack in the game.  And if you have a tactical warlord in the group, Commander's Strike is simply awesome for an at-will if you have a 2H fighter in the group.


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 27, 2008)

Ginnel said:


> a Couple of corrections
> 
> 
> for a priest they do not need to wield an implement at all just have it around their neck or wherever they fancy (Page 62 of PHB for reference)




Multi-class clerics do not use implements as clerics do, only as implements. They need to be wielded and not just worn. PHB 208.



> The Glavie is a heavy blade with reach, The Falchion a heavy blade with high crit (Page 218)




both of them are a damage die down on the Greatsword. The Glaive only has a +2 proficiency. High Crit is not usually worth more than an extra damage die, being worth on average .25 damage(or less, if we assume a 20 does not hit) per tier while the Greatsword does .5 average damage more than the Falchion right off the bat. The Falchion only bests the greatsword in average damage in the Epic Tier when you gain heavy blade specialization. Before then the greatsword is better or equal, though the falchion does benefit from those gloves more than the greatsword, it only comes out ahead by the high crit when using the gloves(their weapon damage becomes equal at 6 average)


----------



## Ginnel (Jul 27, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> Multi-class clerics do not use implements as clerics do, only as implements. They need to be wielded and not just worn. PHB 208.



Unfortunately the evidence provided by that paragraph is flimsy at best.
lets take page 236 as better evidence then.

"unlike other implements, you only need only to wear a holy symbol for its property or power to function"

the sentance in the paragraph before this. 
"Members of other classes gain no benefit from wearing or holding a holy symbol"
now we can either read this as it
means wizards and warlocks don't get to add the +'s to attack from the holy symbol with their spells, however if they multiclassed cleric they would count as a cleric and therefore be able to use the bonuses 

or that a multi classed cleric can wield a symbol instead of holding or wearing a symbol, I think this is untrue no where does it mention wielding symbols and if you could a cleric could then wield 2 symbols and wear 1 due to the following sentance
"If you are wearing or holding more than one holy symbol, none of your symbols functions"


Goumindong said:


> both of them are a damage die down on the Greatsword. The Glaive only has a +2 proficiency. High Crit is not usually worth more than an extra damage die, being worth on average .25 damage(or less, if we assume a 20 does not hit) per tier while the Greatsword does .5 average damage more than the Falchion right off the bat. The Falchion only bests the greatsword in average damage in the Epic Tier when you gain heavy blade specialization. Before then the greatsword is better or equal, though the falchion does benefit from those gloves more than the greatsword, it only comes out ahead by the high crit when using the gloves(their weapon damage becomes equal at 6 average)



Yeah but they are both heavy blades and two handed weapons. In your post it looked like you were saying the greatsword is the only twohanded weapon which can take these feats, its great.


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 27, 2008)

#1

That makes the 1 handed option a lot better. Its still a better two handed build since the purpose of the OA is to punish and not to tickle and two handers can add a lot more damage onto their OAs than others can. But



Ginnel said:


> Yeah but they are both heavy blades and two handed weapons. In your post it looked like you were saying the greatsword is the only twohanded weapon which can take these feats its great.




No, just saying there is nothing wrong with them. Greatswords are balanced weapons and they play just fine as any type of greatweapon fighter. Hammers have more synergy with the basic fighters only builds though and can do some interesting things if you give up a bit of damage with options like Combat Veteran.(con synergy for a dragonborn or dwarf = 2xCon added to healing surge value... a 16 base con dwarf/dragon in the Combat Vet paragon would have a healing surge value of 52 instead of 40 if pumping con)


The weapon that really loses out is picks and axes. There is one axe feat before axe mastery. Axe mastery takes the same skill as heavy blade mastery except with con isntead of dex(trade healing surges for reflex defense). The single axe feat makes the only one of the two handed axes a hit crit weapon... the other is already a high crit weapon. 

All weapon abilities for fighters on their powers are universally worse for axes rather than hammers etc etc etc. Well basically everything that isn't a hammer or a blade suffers this problem.


----------



## Mirtek (Jul 27, 2008)

The problem with greatswords can be summarized in a two words: bastard swords.

One feat that gives nearly the same damage and +2 AC and +2 Ref. There's no single feat for the greatsword fighter that gives even nearly as good a benefit as spending one feat to go BS+Board

There's sure strike, but the issue quickly becomes how often you will use it in a 6 rounds fight ones you have enough encounter (and daily) powers and it's main benefit is still only the consolation prize, as you want to hit and not get the Str mod damage on a miss.

There's potent challenge which is not that usefull to greatsword fighters, as they need Str/Dex/Wis as their three top stats, leaving them with a low Con mod compared to other fighters

The main benifit of GS over BS+Board is power attack and there's the question whether this is worth the same as +2 AC and +2 Ref

Until Complete Martial introduces new superior 2h weapons (and maybe better bracers) at least as far as swords are concerned BS+Board beats GS


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 27, 2008)

Why would you spend a feat to lose the +1 damage, power attack, Bracer's of Might Striking, no free hand, etc when you can spend the feat to do something entirely different? Like, Durable, any of the +defensive feats, back to the wall, racial feats, toughness, skill training, a multiclass feat, jack of all trades, ritual casting, quickdraw, skill focus, back to the wall, blood thirst, combat anticipation, Fleet Footed...

The purpose of a great weapon fighter is to get enemies to attack you and not your allies. A shield defeats this purpose. It does so in two ways.

1. It reduces your damage on OAs and combat Challenge by a significant amount.
2. It reduces their likelyhood to miss you, which decreases the benefit they have for attacking you.

So the shield reduces an enemies incentive to attack you, and decreases their disincentive to ignore you. 

After thinking about it, it looks like the only reason a fighter should have a shield is for the daily abilities they grant and the few powers that use a shield.(which are quite strong and valid reasons, but "no benefit" is not so simple with the bastard sword)

The shield is then more tactical and leadery, letting you push and possibly negating a few important hits while the two handed weapon is more defenderish and consistent. 

If you don't think preventing attacks against your friends is worth +2 AC and Reflex then you should not be playing a defender, you should be playing a striker.

This seems ironic, because the great weapon defender does more dpr. In the end, it just depends on your party config. 

If you don't have a controller, a shield fighter gets better, if your leader is a cleric, a shield fighter gets better. If your wizard focuses more on zones or damage rather than forced movement and specific enemy targeting the shield fighter gets better. If you already have a punishing defender a shield fighter gets better.

So if your party looks like:

Cleric, Paladin, Fighter, Ranger, Blast Wizard then the fighter is probably better off as a shield fighter. 

If your party looks like:

Warlord, Fighter, Wizard, Warlock, Ranger then the fighter is probably better off as a great weapon fighter.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 27, 2008)

Honestly, I think you can even use a pickaxe and be "fine".

You're not going to be a drag on your party and frankly, any encounter a "optimized S&B" can do, the pickaxe user will be able to do.

Seriously, the biggest factor in winning a fight in 4E is NOT JUST the pre-battle optimization but the actual battle itself.

Like I've said before, 4E is akin to Limited whereas 3.x is Constructed.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jul 27, 2008)

Hmm... interesting discussion/analysis creeps up while I was asleep 

I did enjoy the idea of the glaive, but there's no other defender in the party.  I don't know how the Cleric was built or what he does.  I assume a martial cleric since it's a Dwarf, but I'm not certain.  It's looking like the AC bonus isn't going as big a factor as I'm thinking it is, but controlling the battlefield is.  That still lends itself to Sword & Board, I think, because of Tide of Iron and Shield Push.  I'm not seeing the glaive factor in to control anymore since, as stated earlier, reach weapons no longer threaten.  The powers I was going to choose for the glaive were pretty much straight damage powers (e.g. Brute Strike), while for S&B I would choose more control powers that let me push things around.  Truth be told I was originally going to play a Warlord, but changed to a Fighter when I saw the party would have no Defender, since we still have the Cleric as a leader type.

The party structure is: Cleric, Ranger (Archer), Rogue, Wizard, Fighter (me)


----------



## Mirtek (Jul 27, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> Why would you spend a feat to lose the +1 damage, power attack, Bracer's of Might Striking, no free hand, etc when you can spend the feat to do something entirely different? Like, Durable, any of the +defensive feats, back to the wall, racial feats, toughness, skill training, a multiclass feat, jack of all trades, ritual casting, quickdraw, skill focus, back to the wall, blood thirst, combat anticipation, Fleet Footed...



Because none of them comes close to the power of +2 AC and +2 Ref


Goumindong said:


> The purpose of a great weapon fighter is to get enemies to attack you and not your allies. A shield defeats this purpose. It does so in two ways.



Your job is not to get hit, just to make the enemy try (and fail) to hit you. Your not a WoW tank whose job it is to get hit (because he needs to get hit to gain his rage/mana to do his job) and burn the healers mana.

Your job is to not get hit and thus get the enemy to waste their attacks. Otherwise I feel sorry for your leaders and your healing surges won't last longer than 2-3 fights (which brings us back to the 5 minute workday of past editions)


Goumindong said:


> So the shield reduces an enemies incentive to attack you, and decreases their disincentive to ignore you.



The icentive is not that you will be easily hit, your job is not to get hit. The incentive is that -2 penalty and the punishing extra attack from you if they do not attack you.

With the -2 penalty for not hiting you, the average striker will have the same AC as you with your shield (fighter in scale + heavy shield =  AC 19 / ranger with 18 Dex and hide  = AC 17 add a -2 penalty and it's effectively AC 19 too). Thus it's no advantage for the monster to try to hit the striker but only a disadvantage because you get a free attack.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jul 27, 2008)

If you're talking about optimising great weapon fighters, it's feasible to talk about making yourself a more attractive target.

The mobs think they can take you down, and ignoring you is pain and fail. So they are more likely to target you than a S&B fighter.

This works ... as long as the rest of the party understand that's what you're doing.
See, over time, if you're drawing more fire, the rest of the party can afford to invest in feats/powers/equipment that are more offensive in nature.

If the foes die faster, you get hurt less.

It works, so long as the party understands 2 things:
1) It's a team game
2) How to optimise


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 27, 2008)

Mirtek said:


> Because none of them comes close to the power of +2 AC and +2 Ref



 Different =/= Better. You get +2 AC/Ref. I get to breath underwater when its necessary. You get +2 AC/Reflex, i gain an extra 50% of my total hit points per day.



> The icentive is not that you will be easily hit, your job is not to get hit. The incentive is that -2 penalty and the punishing extra attack from you if they do not attack you.



This is only true if your DM is a retard. Lets hope your DM is not a retard. I say this because there is an expectation that your DM is a rational person and is taking rational actions for the enemies(and giving reasons for seemingly irrational actions). Rational people, whether they think they do or not, follow pretty standard decision making processes revolving around costs and benefits. In combat situations costs and benefits become very clear(where they are otherwise very difficult to ascertain) and easy to understand because most people have very similar high priorities for things like "staying alive" and "my friends staying alive". When these priorities come into conflict with other priorities(like how much you spend on dry cleaning), the "staying alive" priorities win out. So, unless your DM is bonkers, he is going to be thinking like this whether you want him to or not.

There are two factors to any decision that someone makes. These factors are

1. Benefit
2. Cost

If you reduce the benefit of taking an action you increase relatively the value of doing something else. If you reduce the cost of an action you increase relatively the value of doing that thing. ED; or, to be a bit simpler. If you reduce the benefit of doing something, you reduce its frequency, if you increase the cost you reduce its frequency. If you increase the benefit of doing something, you increase its frequency, if you decrease the cost of doing something you increase its frequency.

Cost is "what you have to give up to get what you want" so the cost of attacking someone other than the fighter is: One action, the average damage you would do for attacking someone else factoring in that targets value, the average damage you incur for attacking that target factoring in that targets value. And the benefit is the average damage you do to that target. A great weapon fighter, on the "cost" side of that consideration, increases two factors over the shield fighter. This means that so long as the enemy can attack someone else, he is more likely to attack the great weapon fighter than the shield fighter over some other target.

When a fighter increases his AC this reduces the benefit of attacking him. This makes enemies want to attack him _less_. When a fighter deals less damage with his OAs and combat challenge this reduces the cost of attacking someone other than the fighter. This makes enemies want to attack other people _more_. A fighter, when trying to make sure he and his friends survive, wants to get himself to be attacked more than his friends. 

A fighter wants his AC to be just high enough that he doesn't get hit a lot, but low enough that people would rather attack him than his friends with the -2 penalty. (and more and he is giving the enemy undue benefit). But finding that point is not easy. And all things considered, since the fighter has more hit points, more healing surges, more abilities to repair himself, and less abilities to impose damage and status effects on the enemy. Its better to err on the side of getting hit than letting your friends get hit.

Great weapon fighters do this by really making it appetizing to hit them and really unappetizing to hit someone else. Sword and board fighters do this by interposing themselves between them and the enemy and not letting them past. The more melee fighters you have that are likely to be up close and personal, the better the great weapon fighter is(because he has to take attacks rather than just get in the way and hinder movement). If you have a bunch of ranged guys, then wanting them to hit you is not necessary, since you can instead get in front of them, keep them from getting around you, and make yourself the only target in that manner.



> Your job is to not get hit and thus get the enemy to waste their attacks. Otherwise I feel sorry for your leaders and your healing surges won't last longer than 2-3 fights (which brings us back to the 5 minute workday of past editions)



Healing spent on the fighter which has more healing surges and a higher healing surge value is more efficient than healing spent on the rogue which has fewer hit points and a lower healing surge value. Unless everyones AC is so high that the monsters are barely hitting, the increased value of healing the fighter is likely to outweigh the value of the strikers slightly higher AC. In the end though, the monsters are making a rational choice for which character to attack and they will choose what they think is best. If they are choosing the strikers(and if you're sword/board they will be a lot more than if you're great weapon) then you, as a defender, are likely not doing as good a job as you ought to be.



			
				Wayne said:
			
		

> The party structure is: Cleric, Ranger (Archer), Rogue, Wizard, Fighter (me)




If the Cleric and Wizard are ranged characters, then the sword/board is probably best, just make sure your rogue can take a few hits. Dwarfs have a bonus to wisdom which is great for laser clerics, the ranger is stated as archery, and wizards can be kinda half and half, but is likely to be in the back with the Cleric who can heal him and the ranger who can pick off threats that get through the line.(or the wizard is in front, using movement to hold threats forward, who knows).

I would start fairly neutral and not select too many feats you can't get out of via retraining before you decide whether or not to be a sword and board or great weapon. See whether or not your party needs someone sticky, or someone interposing. Since there is likely to be only one other guy up front with you, the shield is probably a better bet, you can use your daily and encounter powers to protect him while interposing and worry less about running out of powers to stop them from hitting your friends.(fewer friends in range mean fewer friends to use your shield utilities on)

ed: sorry if its a bit rambling after the edits, if you have a question ask and ill explain further.


----------



## Gort (Jul 27, 2008)

blargney the second said:


> My minotaur maul fighter is a heck of a lot of fun, and pretty solid to boot.  His basic attack does almost as much damage as the rogue's sneak attack.
> -blarg




So is my godforged colossus fighter.


----------



## Mirtek (Jul 27, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> If they are choosing the strikers(and if you're sword/board they will be a lot more than if you're great weapon) then you, as a defender, are likely not doing as good a job as you ought to be.



As the incentive to attacking the fighter is already much greater than the incentive to attack the striker you are only granting the opponent annother bonus without any need to grant it. And in doing so you waste party ressources.

The opponent chosing the striker over the S&B fighter gains no advantage as far as hit chance is concerned, provokes an unnecessary (as he gains no extra benefit that makes it worth provoking this attack)  attack from the fighter and most likely loses his own attack because he get's pushed away during this attack.

The GW fighter only wastes hp by making himself easier to hit, the S&B fighter saves these hp by either making the enemy miss him or preventing the enemy from hitting his friend.


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 27, 2008)

Mirtek said:


> As the incentive to attacking the fighter is already much greater than the incentive to attack the striker you are only granting the opponent annother bonus without any need to grant it. And in doing so you waste party ressources.
> 
> The opponent chosing the striker over the S&B fighter gains no advantage as far as hit chance is concerned, provokes an unnecessary (as he gains no extra benefit that makes it worth provoking this attack)  attack from the fighter and most likely loses his own attack because he get's pushed away during this attack.
> 
> The GW fighter only wastes hp by making himself easier to hit, the S&B fighter saves these hp by either making the enemy miss him or preventing the enemy from hitting his friend.




1. No. Rangers and Rogues do far more DPR than sword and board fighters even when sword and board fighters are making combat challenges every round(they only get one). They have fewer hit points, less effective healing surges, and fewer healing surges.

This means that its, most of the time, still better to attack the strikers. That isn't to say the -2 penalty is bad, its quite good. But it is to say that the end result is not nearly as strong as you think. Already we have people complaining that the -2 penalty just isn't enough.

2. If this is the case then your strikers are not flanking with you. since its impossible to push an enemy you are flanking out of range of your striker. It is also likely to isolate the striker, or, if you are isolating a single enemy with the striker between it and the leader/controller, allow that enemy to easily move on your controller/leader while forcing you to ignore him or collapse your line.

All of these things bleed resources.

3. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends on the situation and party makeup. If the shield fighter has a confined space that he can use to keep enemies in front of him, and ready attacks to keep pushing them back, then yes. If you have a bunch of melee fighters who are concentrating on dealing damage to enemies its unlikely he will be able to.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jul 27, 2008)

Hmm that's another thing to consider: The rogue should be flanking with me, so that limits Tide of Iron because if I push the foe away, he's not flanking anymore.  The encounter power that lets an adjacent ally shift 2 squares can be helpful, though, because if he's not flanking he can use it to flank.

I guess I need to just sit down and think of what appeals to me more, and just roll with that.


----------



## MwaO (Jul 27, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> You don't have a shield and that lets you concentrate further on deterrence, picking up bracer's of mighty striking for another 2/4/6 average damage.




S&B fighters can use Bracers of Mighty Striking. You're allowed one magical item per slot...a non-magical shield doesn't count against that...


----------



## Mengu (Jul 27, 2008)

wayne62682 said:


> Hmm that's another thing to consider: The rogue should be flanking with me, so that limits Tide of Iron because if I push the foe away, he's not flanking anymore. The encounter power that lets an adjacent ally shift 2 squares can be helpful, though, because if he's not flanking he can use it to flank.




There is typically so much movement going on that, the odds are your rogue will have to move to get in position every round anyway. Tide of Iron shouldn't hinder him too much. And you shouldn't always use Tide of Iron anyway just because you can. Use it when you feel there is a need.


----------



## Nifft (Jul 27, 2008)

Mengu said:


> And you shouldn't always use Tide of Iron anyway just because you can. Use it when you feel there is a need.



 Exactly. Tide of Iron is awesome for pushing critters away from an Archer, Warlock or Wizard. You're not required to use it every round. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 27, 2008)

Nifft said:


> Exactly. Tide of Iron is awesome for pushing critters away from an Archer, Warlock or Wizard. You're not required to use it every round.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Especially if the fighter takes a lot of charge feats and items that help with basic attacks, sometimes its good to just run in and do damage.


----------



## Nifft (Jul 27, 2008)

Stalker0 said:


> Especially if the fighter takes a lot of charge feats and items that help with basic attacks, sometimes its good to just run in and do damage.



 Agree. If there's a Tactical Warlord in the party, someone should optimize for basic attacks -- actually, now that I think about it, that may be the exact purpose of the Great Weapon Fighter. He hefts a maul and wears Bracers of Mighty Striker.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 27, 2008)

Nifft said:


> Agree. If there's a Tactical Warlord in the party, someone should optimize for basic attacks -- actually, now that I think about it, that may be the exact purpose of the Great Weapon Fighter. He hefts a maul and wears Bracers of Mighty Striker.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Hmm, the idea of a charge fighter sounds pretty good. A heroic tier, take power attack, powerful charge, and the bracers of mighty striking.

When you charge, you now have a -1 to attack rolls and gain +7 damage.

Further, you can use readied charges to gain full use of combat superiority.

As a fighter, move in and then ready a charge when your opponent's try to move in. As they get close, you charge, getting massive damage. Further, if they try to continue their move, you get an OA. You get big damage and it prevents enemies from moving past you to hit your friends.


----------



## theNater (Jul 27, 2008)

Mirtek said:


> With the -2 penalty for not hiting you, the average striker will have the same AC as you with your shield (fighter in scale + heavy shield =  AC 19 / ranger with 18 Dex and hide  = AC 17 add a -2 penalty and it's effectively AC 19 too). Thus it's no advantage for the monster to try to hit the striker but only a disadvantage because you get a free attack.



I feel a need to mention that a ranger with 18 dex and hide armor is not an average striker.  Rangers are the only strikers proficient with hide by default, and a two-weapon ranger is not very likely to have an 18 dex.

Rangers in hide with a 13 or 14 dex are going to be pretty common, with ACs of either 14 or 15.

Rogues will often have a dex of 18, but they'll be in leather, for an AC of 16.

Warlocks have the roughest time in terms of AC, with their int usually being around 14 and leather armor, giving them a 14.

In the case of a fighter with an AC of 19, all of these folks are going to continue to be tempting targets even to a marked enemy.


----------



## MwaO (Jul 27, 2008)

Nifft said:


> Agree. If there's a Tactical Warlord in the party, someone should optimize for basic attacks -- actually, now that I think about it, that may be the exact purpose of the Great Weapon Fighter. He hefts a maul and wears Bracers of Mighty Striker.




But that doesn't actually make for a huge shift in damage, it just means a little extra. Because you can wear Bracers of Mighty Striking with a shield - it just can't be a magical shield.


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 27, 2008)

apearlma said:


> But that doesn't actually make for a huge shift in damage, it just means a little extra. Because you can wear Bracers of Mighty Striking with a shield - it just can't be a magical shield.




Not unless you have a third arm you cannot for the same reason you cannot dual wield and use a shield at the same time either. 



> Hmm that's another thing to consider: The rogue should be flanking with me, so that limits Tide of Iron because if I push the foe away, he's not flanking anymore. The encounter power that lets an adjacent ally shift 2 squares can be helpful, though, because if he's not flanking he can use it to flank.
> 
> I guess I need to just sit down and think of what appeals to me more, and just roll with that.




As a shield fighter, in a situation like this here will be your optimal course of action, where E is an enemy, R is the rogue, F is you, and C/W is your cleric/wizard, and A is your archery ranger


```
...
EEE
.F.
.E.
.R.
.W.
.C.
.A.
```

The wizard and cleric will be wanting to make sure every combat is as much like the above corridor as possible using nasty zones that are hard to move through. The cleric is going to be buffing you for defenses if possible. The wizard is going to be keeping the enemy from getting around the rogue and you when its not proper(in fact, he can thunderwave enemies out from beside you on either side, and/or knock the enemy back into flanking without hitting anyone)

Your job, as the fighter is to keep as many enemies in front of you as possible with one enemy behind you to be flanked by the rogue. Everyone beats on the enemy flanked(except maybe you, who might want to ready actions to mess around with their front line and prevent attacks and the wizard who might want to ready thunderwave to punish people who think they can escape) and then you isolate another enemy.


----------



## Nifft (Jul 27, 2008)

apearlma said:


> But that doesn't actually make for a huge shift in damage, it just means a little extra. Because you can wear Bracers of Mighty Striking with a shield - it just can't be a magical shield.



 True, but magical shields are competitive for that slot: Bashing, Deflection and Defiance all leap out as more desirable, and Guardian is kinda hot too, if you like to gamble.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 27, 2008)

Nifft said:


> True, but magical shields are competitive for that slot: Bashing, Deflection and Defiance all leap out as more desirable, and Guardian is kinda hot too, if you like to gamble.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Not true. While it works by the slot rules, it does not work by the "can my character wear these things rules".

For the same reason that you cannot dual wield and wield a two handed weapon at the same time or dual wield and use a shield or wield a two handed weapon and use a shield at the same time despite the "item slots" working just fine under those interpretations.


----------



## MwaO (Jul 27, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> Not unless you have a third arm you cannot for the same reason you cannot dual wield and use a shield at the same time either.




If you're using a shield, you can't use that hand to make attacks. But a non-magical shield does not take up your arm slot and wearing the bracers simply gives a property. It doesn't make attacks. Not to mention, they specifically state that you can wear bracers and carry a shield at the same time.



			
				PHB page 224 said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Zelc (Jul 27, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> Not true. While it works by the slot rules, it does not work by the "can my character wear these things rules".
> 
> For the same reason that you cannot dual wield and wield a two handed weapon at the same time or dual wield and use a shield or wield a two handed weapon and use a shield at the same time despite the "item slots" working just fine under those interpretations.



I think what he meant was there are magic shields that may be better than magic bracers, and while you can carry a shield and wear magic bracers, you can't carry a magic shield and wear magic bracers.


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 27, 2008)

apearlma said:


> If you're using a shield, you can't use that hand to make attacks. But a non-magical shield does not take up your arm slot and wearing the bracers simply gives a property. It doesn't make attacks. Not to mention, they specifically state that you can wear bracers and carry a shield at the same time.





There are two options

1. The fluff example in the DMG is erroneous
2. You cannot wear bracers and benefit from the AC and Reflex bonus that a shield grants, nor benefit from any power that requires you to be wielding a shield since the fluff example in the DMG explicitly states that you may not benefit from any other item being worn. Any other item strapped into the same slot doesn't function.

Non-magical shields do not take up a magic item slot yes. Non-magical shields do however, take up the space on your arm that the bracer goes. And wearing the shield means you cannot strap the shield on, the bracer gets in the way.

Its the same reason you cannot wear magical or non-magical cloth under plate mail and expect to benefit from boots of striding and springing(even if you are technically "wearing light armor"), or expect to get the enhancement bonus from the cloth and the armor bonus of the plate. (I.E. trade a few points of AC for the enhancements you can put on cloth, but not plate)


----------



## Nifft (Jul 27, 2008)

Zelc said:


> I think what he meant was there are magic shields that may be better than magic bracers, and while you can carry a shield and wear magic bracers, you can't carry a magic shield and wear magic bracers.



 Yes, this is what I meant.

Thanks, -- N


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jul 27, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> There are two options
> 
> 1. The fluff example in the DMG is erroneous
> 2. You cannot wear bracers and benefit from the AC and Reflex bonus that a shield grants, nor benefit from any power that requires you to be wielding a shield since the fluff example in the DMG explicitly states that you may not benefit from any other item being worn. Any other item strapped into the same slot doesn't function.
> ...




Are you seriously saying I can't be wearing 3 nonmagical rings, put on a 4th (magical) ring, and none of them work?


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jul 27, 2008)

Sorry.  Please delete.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jul 27, 2008)

No, 4th edition says there are _magic_ item slots.
I can benefit from 2 magic rings, one on each hand.
I have 4 fingers as optional physical places to place each of those rings.

Nonmagical items are irrelevant if they don't physically occupy all the space.


----------



## MwaO (Jul 27, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> Non-magical shields do not take up a magic item slot yes. Non-magical shields do however, take up the space on your arm that the bracer goes. And wearing the shield means you cannot strap the shield on, the bracer gets in the way.




Could you point to a page number where they might say something remotely like that? Page 224 in Players Handbook on how item slots work says the exact opposite - that you can, in fact, specifically wear a magical bracers and magical shield at the same time as the example. The problem being that only the magical item you put on first will work. This is not fluff text, these are the actual item slot rules.

As the shield is not a magic item, you don't care if its magical powers work or not...



Goumindong said:


> Its the same reason you cannot wear magical or non-magical cloth under plate mail and expect to benefit from boots of striding and springing(even if you are technically "wearing light armor"), or expect to get the enhancement bonus from the cloth and the armor bonus of the plate. (I.E. trade a few points of AC for the enhancements you can put on cloth, but not plate)




Not at all the same thing. You can't wear two helmets at once(again, from PHB page 224), so no two sets of armor. You can wear a shield and a bracer at the same time, that's not a physical limitation.

Not to mention, neither of those would work well for other mechanical reasons.


----------



## Cadfan (Jul 27, 2008)

Runestar said:


> If you have something to say in my face, just say it out loud and not beat about the bush. List those issues out 1 by 1 and I will do my best to answer them.



Heh, to be honest, I wasn't talking about you and don't actually know who you are.


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 27, 2008)

Danceofmasks said:


> Are you seriously saying I can't be wearing 3 nonmagical rings, put on a 4th (magical) ring, and none of them work?




No, only two of them work as per the item slot rules. You get to choose. He is saying he can use a shield and bracers at the same time. He cannot, he gets to choose. Non magical rings have no benefit so it doesn't matter whether or not you stack up on them.

Page 224 is my reference. Right after it says (and this is not rules text, but example text), that you can put on a bracer and shield it says that you only can benefit from ONE of them. So you can either benefit from the bracer or you can benefit from the shield, but not benefot from both.

Furthermore there is absolutely nothing preventing you from putting two sets of armor on, especially when one is cloth. Nothing is preventing you from putting two helmets on if one of them fits over the other. Nothing prevents you from putting on a helmet and goggles. The text only prevents the one you put on second from having any mechanical effect on the game.

But you can only benefit from one at a time, and the one you benefit from is the one you put on first, that is pretty explicit. 

That is, if that example text is taken as rule text rather than example text. 

The rules state, and I quote:

Pg 224.
"Practically speaking, you can wear bracers and carry a shield at the same time. 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, they do not say "you can *use* bracers and a shield at the same time".  And it does say that you only benefit from the item you put on first.

Note: The rules do not say "you gain no benefit from the magical properties" or "you gain no magical benefit", it makes no distinction. You simply gain no benefit and get no function.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jul 27, 2008)

From the magic item slot, yes.
So whichever item you aren't benefiting from, you aren't benefiting from its magical properties.

For the record, I do think you can wear magical cloth under nonmagical plate.
You get to use the cloth's daily power, but if you're relying on the plate for AC, you only get (unenhanced) 8.


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 27, 2008)

Danceofmasks said:


> From the magic item slot, yes.
> So whichever item you aren't benefiting from, you aren't benefiting from its magical properties.
> 
> For the record, I do think you can wear magical cloth under nonmagical plate.
> You get to use the cloth's daily power, but if you're relying on the plate for AC, you only get (unenhanced) 8.




No, you either get the cloths ability and AC or the plates AC. The argument you are relying on to say that you can use the non-magical shield and magical bracers would also support that you can gain the plates AC, the cloths enhancement bonus(since its a flat out bonus to AC and not a bonus to the item) on top of that AC, and the cloths ability. 

You cannot use both, its an abuse of the system.


----------



## FadedC (Jul 27, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> Note: The rules do not say "you gain no benefit from the magical properties" or "you gain no magical benefit", it makes no distinction. You simply gain no benefit and get no function.




Hmm......you make an interesting point related the RAW. However I have a difficult time beliving it's the RAI that  putting on a non magical bracer would prevent you from blocking attacks with your non magical shield.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jul 27, 2008)

Hmm ... it does look like you get the enhancement from cloth under plate.

The sentence preceeding that says you can only benefit from one _magic_ item you put in the slot.
Earlier, the purpose of slots is to provide a practical limitation to the number of magic items you can use.

The use of magic bracers requires the magic arms slot.
The use of a magic shield requires the magic arms slot.
The use of a nonmagical shield requires the use of the shield arm and hand.

There's no overlap here.


----------



## MwaO (Jul 27, 2008)

FadedC said:


> Hmm......you make an interesting point related the RAW. However I have a difficult time beliving it's the RAI that  putting on a non magical bracer would prevent you from blocking attacks with your non magical shield.




The RAW is in a section about how magic item slots work, not how ordinary items work. Every time they say the word 'item' they mean 'magical item'


----------



## MrGrenadine (Jul 28, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> 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.
> 
> ...





QFT.  A thousand times, QFT.
Bravo.

MrG


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 28, 2008)

FadedC said:


> Hmm......you make an interesting point related the RAW. However I have a difficult time beliving it's the RAI that  putting on a non magical bracer would prevent you from blocking attacks with your non magical shield.




It would not. Why would it? The rules are in place to prevent rules abuse by stacking multiple items, be they mundane or not. Its the same reason you cannot "wield" a dagger in your off hand and benefit from both two weapon fighting and a light shield even if a light shield lets you hold a weapon.



			
				Danceofmasks said:
			
		

> Hmm ... it does look like you get the enhancement from cloth under plate.
> 
> The sentence preceeding that says you can only benefit from one _magic_ item you put in the slot.
> Earlier, the purpose of slots is to provide a practical limitation to the number of magic items you can use.
> ...




Except its the clarifying text and not the basic text that say all items. And bracers require the use of your shield arm.

The preceding text is very similar to the text in front of say "shifting". Where it says you don't provoke OA. But really the specific rule is that you don't provoke OA when you shift out of an adjacent square. 

Its the same for this. While it is quite true that you can't use two magic items in the same slot, the specific rule is any item, not just magic items. You can wear them(unless something prevents you from doing so), you just don't get any benefit form one of them.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Jul 28, 2008)

Benly said:


> The problem is when people say "Oh, I'm a roleplayer, I won't optimize or ask for advice" and the _system_ punishes them. I've seen a lot of these people end up frustrated because, D&D being designed as it was in 3.x, the beguiler 3/warlock 1 ends up being able to do all of nothing against the encounters in the module. It's not fun for him, and it doesn't make him an inherently better roleplayer than the people whose builds actually work. "Play What You Want To Play" is fine as far as it goes, but as it happens sometimes what you want to play isn't what looks like the thing you want to play on your first glance over the rulebooks. (e.g. "I want to play a big strong tough guy! I should take Toughness and Great Fortitude!")




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


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jul 28, 2008)

But bracers do not require the use of your shield arm.
Shield arm != arms slot.


----------



## Yaezakura (Jul 28, 2008)

apearlma said:


> The RAW is in a section about how magic item slots work, not how ordinary items work. Every time they say the word 'item' they mean 'magical item'



Heh. I like how people like to assume the exact wording works in their favor in some places, and is obviously talking about something else entirely in other places.

Let's just face facts. An item takes up an item slot, whether it's magical or not. You cannot wear magic Cloth underneath your mundane Plate and expect to get the enhancement bonus, as this is clear and blatant abuse of the rules. You are allowed one item in the Body slot, and that is that.

Similarly, a shield takes up your Arm slot, magic or not. Even if you can physically wear bracers and carry a shield at the same time, they get in each other's way. You only get the benefit of one of them. To attempt to do anything else is as blatent an abuse of rules as trying to wearing magical Cloth beneath your mundane Plate armor and expecting to get the bonuses.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jul 28, 2008)

What do you mean, face facts?
The only item slots are slots for magic.
Bracers and shields occupy the same slot if they are magical.


----------



## Yaezakura (Jul 28, 2008)

Danceofmasks said:


> What do you mean, face facts?
> The only item slots are slots for magic.
> Bracers and shields occupy the same slot if they are magical.



Ah. So I can carry a normal longsword and a magical one in the same hand and hit with both every attack? I mean, the normal longsword doesn't use up your Weapon/Implement slot, apparently.

Heck, why not where a suit of mundane AND magical plate armor? The mundane one doesn't use up the slot, so you can have massive AC!


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 28, 2008)

Yaezakura said:


> Ah. So I can carry a normal longsword and a magical one in the same hand and hit with both every attack? I mean, the normal longsword doesn't use up your Weapon/Implement slot, apparently.
> 
> Heck, why not where a suit of mundane AND magical plate armor? The mundane one doesn't use up the slot, so you can have massive AC!




That doesn't work because they are both armor bonuses.

The real problem is wielding a shield, holding a dagger in that hand, and gaining the two weapon bonus to damage with your main hand and other such ridiculousness. Or as already stated, wearing plate armor over cloth armor and getting the abilities and enhancements of the cloth with the base AC of the Plate. But still getting bonuses due to wearing light armor(since you are indeed wearing light armor) AND heavy armor specialization bonuses. Heck, you even get to add your dex or intelligence to AC since when wearing heavy armor you don't add anything, but when wearing light armor you do. (so you both don't add and add and such end up adding).

Holy Molle a fighter who puts on mundane cloth under his scalemail gains his dex or int bonus to AC and can use the much cheaper boots of striding or striding and springing. Ha ha, whoops!

No, the rules simply do not state that this is the way it works, and rulings that state that this is the way it works are just plain wonky. The rules state very clearly in their clarifying and specific text that when using an item, any item, that occupies the same "slot" you can only gain the benefit from one of the two, whether or not that benefit is mundane or not.

If you're using bracers and getting a benefit from them, you cannot use a shield. You must take the bracers off before using the shield.


----------



## amysrevenge (Jul 28, 2008)

Stalker0 said:


> Hmm, the idea of a charge fighter sounds pretty good. A heroic tier, take power attack, powerful charge, and the bracers of mighty striking.





Working on one, warforged, going for the Warforged Juggernaut paragon path which includes more charging goodness.


----------



## FadedC (Jul 28, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> It would not. Why would it? The rules are in place to prevent rules abuse by stacking multiple items, be they mundane or not. Its the same reason you cannot "wield" a dagger in your off hand and benefit from both two weapon fighting and a light shield even if a light shield lets you hold a weapon.




Well your argument is that it has nothing to do with magical properties, that it's just that putting on a bracer innately negates a shield regardless of if there is any magic involved or not. This would mean that putting on a non magical bracer would negate your shield just as much as putting a magical bracer on would.

Benefitting from 2 items at once is irrelevent, because by either interpetation of the rules you could only benefit from one magical property, and the bracer propoerties are not obviously better then the shield ones.


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 28, 2008)

FadedC said:


> Well your argument is that it has nothing to do with magical properties, that it's just that putting on a bracer innately negates a shield regardless of if there is any magic involved or not. This would mean that putting on a non magical bracer would negate your shield just as much as putting a magical bracer on would.
> 
> Benefitting from 2 items at once is irrelevent, because by either interpetation of the rules you could only benefit from one magical property, and the bracer propoerties are not obviously better then the shield ones.




My argument is nothing of the sort. My argument is that you can only use one item in any slot at a time, my argument is not that using bracers negates the shield. You are perfectly able to use the shield, OR use the bracers. But you cannot use the shield AND the bracers. To change from using the shield to the bracers you need to take the shield off and put the bracers on first. To change to using the shield you need to put the shield on first. As per RAW

Now, the other part of this is that non-magical bracers give no benefit, and so it wouldn't matter if you put them on or not, you would still qualify as "receiving no benefit from the item" and so could still use the shield since you were only receiving benefit from a single item. Why could use use the shield? Because you are receiving no benefit from the non-magical bracers. Its the same as saying that you put a feather in your cap. Mechanically it makes no difference at all.

Mechanically it DOES make a difference, because people cannot use bracers and a shield at the same time it limits shield users to magical shields. It means they cannot get both the personal protection of bracers of defense(mechanically superior to all self shield protection for the most part), and the +1-3 AC from a shield. 

It means that people in heavy armor cannot gain their int bonus to defense(otherwise they just wear cloth, are now wearing light armor, and so add their int/dex bonus to defense), or benefit from boots of striding and springing(same as above)

It means that people using light shields cannot gain two weapon fighting benefits.

It means that you have to make trade offs for that mundane or magical item you want to strap to yourself just because

edit: Bucklers died in in the conversion from 3.5 to 4e for a reason.


----------



## NorthSaber (Jul 28, 2008)

On-topic: I think many two-handed weapons are cool, and I think reach is underappreciated. I find that a reach weapon gives you more options and strategies in actual battle that can be put into numbers and percentages for optimization purposes. I do think that the sword family is a bit problematic, and that bastard sword is a bit too good. 

One more thing to remember about two-handed weapons is that they often fall into two weapon categories, opening up more power and feat options than one-handed weapons. 

Off-topic: I think that people are getting confused when we're talking about worn items, wielded items, and magic item slots. You can wear ten cloaks if you want, nothing in the rules prohibits that. If some of them happen to be magical, then the first such cloak takes up the magic item slot, and further magical cloaks have no effect (magic-wise). 

You can wield a light shield and hold a weapon in the same hand, but you can't wield them both (if I have understood things correctly). In order to benefit from the weapon's enchantments, or to use the weapon for an attack power, you need to be able to wield it. 

Similarly, you can have magical bracers (which take up the magic item slot) and a normal shield (which is the item you wield with your left hand). You're not wielding the bracers, and the shield doesn't take up the magic item slot, so there's no conflict.

This is surely RAI, but I'm sure someone could read RAW otherwise, and clarification would be good. One of the basic guidelines I use myself is that if the rules would lead to physical impossibilities (or absurdities), I choose the interpretation which doesn't result in such folly. The bracers do not impede your use of the shield, and it would be downright silly to lose the shield's mundane bonuses just because you're using a magical trinket on your wrist.


----------



## Maxim Machinery (Jul 28, 2008)

Wow. I honestly feel less intelligent for having read this debate. The idea that wearing magical bracers somehow invalidates the usefulness of my non-magical hunk-o'-steel is, well, absurd. I have to wonder if this confusion arises due to use of the word 'slot' and the associated parallels to computer RPGs, where one's paper-doll avatar can only hold so much, regardless of real-world physics.

RAW:

Nowhere does it state that you cannot wear clothes under your full-plate (protip: clothes are mechanically referred to a 'cloth armour') - in fact, wearing heavy plates of steel without some padding underneath is not reccomended. Nor does it specifically state that you can't wear two helmets, if one will fit inside the other. It doesn't specifically state that you can't wield two weapons in one hand either, but it doesn't have to; that's just (gasp) common sense.

Yes, common sense applies in pen & paper RPGs. If that offends your sensibilities, then perhaps you would enjoy World of Warcraft or Magic: the Gathering more. Regardless of your personal preferences, however, DMs (GMs, storytellers, adjudicators, judges, mayors etc.) have, for time immemorial (well, OK, about 40 years) enforced the rules of common sense onto the games they oversee, and shall continue to do so for countless years to come.

There is NO RULE saying I cannot wield fourty-two greatswords in my left hand, while scratching my nose with my right - it's implied. This brings me to:

RAI:

There is no inherent reason i can't wear and benefit from 10 magical rings at the same time (a-la The Mandarin). The magical item slot rules are purely a game-balance mechanic. It has always been the case that D&D has had some exceptionally powerful magic items, and that, in the high levels of play, these items have been somewhat defining with regard to your character's statistics. Thus, there has (since the humble days of Basic D&D) been a need to limit the number of usable magic items, in the name of game balance. The classical example of this is the 'two ring' rule - I can wear two rings total, no matter where I decide to adorn myself with them.

Ergo, it can be srumised that the part of the rules concerning magic item slots, is referring to _magical items you can benefit from_ and not some strange physical property of the universe that my arms can only _statistically benefit from one thing at a time_ (even though I can quite clearly wear gloves, bracers, bangles, a sleeved shirt and cufflinks, while wielding a shield and hanging a handbag from my crooked elbow - to say nothing of tattoos!).

In a more succinct format: I think your arguments are grasping at obscure wording to justify your ethical concerns about 'game balance' (note that I have not bothered to address wether your concerns are correct - nor will I) and that any sane GM would throw your interpretation aside for a slightly more realistic vision of what a person can reasonably 'use.'

If, on the other hand, _you_ are said GM, I think your players will have differing opinions, and will likely argue with you. If not, feel free to continue using your interpretation - it certainly doesn't bother me what you do in your free time, so long as you keep your absurd notions to yourself in polite company or, at the very least, refrain from presenting your point of view as though it is absolutely correct and is the only possible interpretation, when others are quite clearly flabbergasted at the notion that a reasonable individual could support such a veiwpoint (I am aware of the hypocracy).

TL;DR: L2P

And I hope any moderators reading this will realise that my veiled ad-homonim attcks were meant in jest. Mostly. >.>


----------



## Maxim Machinery (Jul 28, 2008)

Accursed gateway timout tricked me into double-posting! You've not heard the last of me, network!


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 28, 2008)

Maxim Machinery said:


> Nowhere does it state that you cannot wear clothes under your full-plate (protip: clothes are mechanically referred to a 'cloth armour') - in fact, wearing heavy plates of steel without some padding underneath is not reccomended.




You're right. It does not say that you cannot wear clothes under your full plate armor. *It does say that you cannot benefit from clothes under your full plate armor*

It does not say that you cannot wear a shield and bracers. *It does say that you cannot benefit from both a shield and bracers*

I don't know if its the explicit rules text on page 224 that say "You can only benefit from one item that occupies any given item slot" or its the rules text on page 224 that says "you benefit from the first item that you put on and you must take that item off to benefit from anything else" that is confusing, but its got to be something in there.

So: RAW says "you can't use bracers and a shield at the same time"

And RAI says the same thing, since the item mechanics are there in order to force players to make choices as to what items they want rather than letting them stick anything wherever they want.

Cloth Armor gives you a benefit. When you wear it, you count as wearing light armor, which gives you a bonus to your AC equal to your dexterity. You can use powers that require you to use light armor and gain other bonuses associated with it.

RAI is there in the item rules to say "hey dude, you can't wield a bunch of things at the same time and benefit from all of them, its stupid"



> There is NO RULE saying I cannot wield fourty-two greatswords in my left hand, while scratching my nose with my right - it's implied. This brings me to:




Actually there is. The game explicitly mentions physical limitations to using too many tiems. You cannot hold 42 greatswords in your left hand, you cannot wield any greatswords in one hand since they are two handed weapons. Ergo the rules explicitly say you can only use one greatsword at a time.



> and that any sane GM would throw your interpretation aside for a slightly more realistic vision of what a person can reasonably 'use.'




A person can reasonably "use" goggles and a diadem at the same time. A person can "reasonably use" many many things to utterly break the game, and that is why we have all these rules that note when you cannot do that even if a "person could reasonably do it"


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 28, 2008)

NorthSaber said:


> The bracers do not impede your use of the shield, and it would be downright silly to lose the shield's mundane bonuses just because you're using a magical trinket on your wrist.




A magical trinket which impedes the use of your shield. Why? 

Take your pick

1. Its magic, a wizard did it
2. Shields are required to be strapped on and typically held at the hand. These straps do not over the bracers because they are a similar contraption themselves, and there is no way of affixing the straps to the magical bracers.

You see, the backing of a shield consists of a piece of leather formed onto your forearm, and the straps are run through a piece of formed leather to hold the shield fast. Soft leather does not work because, while it has the surface area to hold, it does not have the rigidity and under pressure will slip.

Hard leather will not go around the bracer, and fixing the straps to the bracer will destroy its magical properties.

3. The increase in distance between the fulcrum and the shield created by the magical bracers makes the shield unusable as a defensive implement except in the crudest sense. It might get in the way, but its just as easy to bash aside and then be used as a liability rather than an asset.

4. The gods are not kind to those who mess with the feng shui of arm slot items.


Pick your poison, they all work, depending on what power source you like best, Arcane, Divine, Martial, etc.


----------



## NorthSaber (Jul 28, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> I don't know if its the explicit rules text on page 224 that say "You can only benefit from one item that occupies any given item slot" or its the rules text on page 224 that says "you benefit from the first item that you put on and you must take that item off to benefit from anything else" that is confusing, but its got to be something in there.




You do realize that this chapter is about magic items, right? As far as I'm concerned, the benefits indicated mean the magical properties only. 

Your mileage may vary, as they say, and apparently it does.


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 28, 2008)

NorthSaber said:


> You do realize that this chapter is about magic items, right? As far as I'm concerned, the benefits indicated mean the magical properties only.




Asked and Answered. Please read the thread before bringing up redundant points unless you have specific grievance with the rational given.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jul 28, 2008)

Not to my satisfaction!
"These are called item slots, and they provide a practical limit to the number of magic items you can wear and use."

Putting on a nonmagical anything doesn't ever interfere with the number of remaining slots you have.
Plate armour comes with boots, and helmet, and arm guards. Item slots of those locations aren't likewise used up.

You are also simply repeating what you're saying, so I guess there's no bridging this gap.


----------



## FadedC (Jul 28, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> My argument is nothing of the sort. My argument is that you can only use one item in any slot at a time, my argument is not that using bracers negates the shield. You are perfectly able to use the shield, OR use the bracers. But you cannot use the shield AND the bracers. To change from using the shield to the bracers you need to take the shield off and put the bracers on first. To change to using the shield you need to put the shield on first. As per RAW




Actually that is the only legitimate rules basis for your argument....your claim that the rules don't specify magical property when they talk about item slot. Because the rules outright say that if you wear bracers and a shield,  you only recieve the benefit of the item you put on first, this would mean that putting on non magical bracers first would invalidate the use of a shield (magical or otherwise). The fact that non magical bracers provide no benefit do not change the fact that only the first item put on has an effect.

If your trying to claim common sense, well then obviously that's not the case. But your whole argument is not based on common sense. It's based on the claim that the rules specifically say you can't have bracers and a shield, regardless of magical properties. Despite the fact that there is no game balance or logic reason for that to be illegal.

As a side note i'd say your claim that bracers of defence give more protection then any magical shield bonus is highly questionable, given that they only apply to a single attack and use up your daily item use which is often far better used for other better protective properties. Something like the shield of deflection seems far superior for perosnal protection.


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 28, 2008)

Danceofmasks said:


> Not to my satisfaction!
> "These are called item slots, and they provide a practical limit to the number of magic items you can wear and use."
> 
> Putting on a nonmagical anything doesn't ever interfere with the number of remaining slots you have.
> ...




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.


----------



## Archmage (Jul 29, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> Northsaber said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The "specific grievance" would be that the rationale is wrong. You're quoting text that specifically refers to magic items and saying that it applies to normal shields as well. Specific quotes from the text:

_"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."_
That pretty plainly says that you can benefit from only one *magic item*, and it is not fluff text - it is in the text defining magic item categories.

_Sometimes there are physical limitations as well—you can’t wear two helms at the same time. _
Surely you can't think that this applies to bracers and a shield - no such physical limitation applies. 

Let's go farther back in the rules:
_Light Shield: You need to use your shield hand to wield a light shield properly. You can still use that hand to hold another item, to climb, or the like. However, you can’t use your shield hand to make attacks.
Heavy Shield: When you use a heavy shield, you gain a greater bonus to your AC and Reflex defense, but you can’t use your shield hand for any other task._
This is from the definition of shields in the Equipment chapter, page 214. The only restriction here is on what your shield hand can be used for. Clearly, nothing here prohibits the use of magical bracers. 

I can't find anything in the RAW that would prohibit using a non-magical shield while wearing (and using) magical bracers. The passages you are using to defend the counterpoint all refer specifically to magic items that occupy the same slot.  As others have said, there are no slots for non-magical items. A non-magical shield doesn't use an "arm slot" - it must be strapped to an arm, and there are limitations to what you can do with the hand on that arm, but that is NOT the same thing as an item slot. Those are specifically defined under the heading "Magic Item Categories:" _These are called item slots, and they provide a practical limit to the number of magic items you can wear and use."_ 

It may be a perfectly reasonable house rule to say that you can't use a normal shield with magical bracers, but that's exactly what it would be - a house rule.


----------



## bardolph (Jul 29, 2008)

*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...


----------



## bardolph (Jul 29, 2008)

Archmage said:


> It may be a perfectly reasonable house rule to say that you can use a normal shield with magical bracers, but that's exactly what it would be - a house rule.



Umm, did you mean to use the word "can't" instead of "can"?


----------



## Maxim Machinery (Jul 29, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> 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.


----------



## firesnakearies (Jul 29, 2008)

This is so absurd.


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 29, 2008)

bardolph said:


> *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.


----------



## NorthSaber (Jul 29, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> 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.


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 29, 2008)

NorthSaber said:


> 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.


----------



## NorthSaber (Jul 29, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> 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.


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 29, 2008)

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.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jul 29, 2008)

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.


----------



## NorthSaber (Jul 29, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> 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
> ...




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 (Jul 29, 2008)

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 (Jul 29, 2008)

Danceofmasks said:


> 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 (Jul 29, 2008)

NorthSaber said:


> 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 (Jul 29, 2008)

Goumindong said:


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



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 (Jul 29, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> (snip)




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


----------



## Benly (Jul 30, 2008)

MrGrenadine said:


> 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 (Jul 30, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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.


----------

