Obryn
Hero
Dr_Ruminahui nailed it in his post, and I think you've completely missed my point. There's no problem with wanting to do more damage. I'd argue that superior weapons like the Executioner's Axe are a perfect example of an important player choice.Hmm... so what if the character's concept depends on executioner's axe? Or dual bastard swords? The whole point of those concept choices is that the character does more damage than with other weapons. How is that logically different than IAoP? "OK, I'm banning IAoP because they do more damage per attack, but I accept Executioner's Axe which does exactly the same thing." Huh?
Where does this logic stop? Only at IAoP? If so, then why? What is so offensive about IAoP that you ban them for doing the same thing as a brutal d12 axe?
(1) It takes a feat to use, so there's a real character cost.
(2) There are other equally valid options at the same tier - fullblades and mordenkrads - which have their own features. (Or bastard swords vs. craghammers vs. dwarven waraxes, for that matter.)
(3) Whether an Executioner's Axe proficiency is better than other options depends on the specific character, their power selection, and so on.
Iron Armbands/Bracers of Archery fit none of these categories for any weapon-users. It's essentially free for any mid-heroic character, and there are no other equally valid options for the arm slot.
-O