Can Sleeves of Many Garments Produce a Swarm Suit?


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 443 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Nefreet wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Are we getting off topic?

Forget about the Swarmsuit for a moment, and let me describe a scene...

"Hmm, it sure has gotten chilly out. I should have dressed warmer. Ah, well, good thing I have these magical sleeves! There we go, much better."

This is exactly what I imagined this item being able to do, the moment I saw it.

Now, I have people telling me it cannot even produce a warm coat, that actually keeps my PC warm?

Poppycock.

There are probably more people that would allow the Sleeves to transform into a Cold Weather Outfit than would allow them to transform into a Swarmsuit, since one is clearly defined as clothing, and the other not so much, so you're luckier in that regard.

I also don't think I've ever encountered anyone in person that rules the Sleeves to be illusory (only those in this thread), so another point in your favor.

And, you don't play much PFS, so I think you're generally safe.

Well, I recently moved, so PFS is a bit harder to do, for now. Also, I have a PFS PC, with said Sleeves. For the purpose expressed above.

Wanting to know the limits of what one of my first, and only, magic items is capable of, is important to me.

Having someone basically telling me dismissively "nothing", is a bit irritating.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Not all interpretation are equally valid. If I were take the interpretation that the Second Amendment gave me a right to bear arms (as in actual bear arms, that's what it says right)? My interpretation would differ from other interpretations, but not be valid. Merely because one can interpret something differently does not make their interpretation a valid one. I can't really agree to disagree anymore then I could agree to disagree that a person entitled to actual bear arms under the Second Amendment. That interpretation is wrong regardless of whether I agree to disagree on it or not. That being said I do agree that we disagree on this topic.

Actually, according to your only argument, which is the English language, your interpretation of 'actual bear arms' is equally valid. That's the problem with the English language. It is not unambiguous.

So you've basically just argued against yourself.

Liberty's Edge

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
deusvult wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Clever bit of sophistry, FLite, but the Swarmsuit is 1 item, and its description says it is clothing.

But is clothing the same thing as Clothing?

Not necessarily, and that's the crux of the issue.

I think that is the crux of the issue. And I do consider it unlikely that the writers thought of using the SoMG to create a Swarmsuit, but we can only speculate at the RAI, and anyway, it's hardly relevant. If we players think of things the writers didn't, then that is just good and creative playing, and the very soul of the game.

In a nonPFS game, it is the DM's call. Since the purpose of PFS is to sell PFS products, and that he who buys the cool books gets the cool benefits.

I think PFS DMs need compelling evidence to rule against the customer, and I don't think the argument against successfully bears the burden of proof.

*cough*

Well, I am AWARE that not everyone agrees with me. I'm not sure about accepting it.

But are you really saying that PFS characters are not customers and should not be treated as customers?

And that is one of the most horrible mindset possible: the player is a consumer that should be satisfied and the GM is some kind of clerk that should work for him.

Exactly how much you are paying your GM for that service?

Pathfinder is a


redward wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Not all interpretation are equally valid. If I were take the interpretation that the Second Amendment gave me a right to bear arms (as in actual bear arms, that's what it says right)? My interpretation would differ from other interpretations, but not be valid. Merely because one can interpret something differently does not make their interpretation a valid one. I can't really agree to disagree anymore then I could agree to disagree that a person entitled to actual bear arms under the Second Amendment. That interpretation is wrong regardless of whether I agree to disagree on it or not. That being said I do agree that we disagree on this topic.

Actually, according to your only argument, which is the English language, your interpretation of 'actual bear arms' is equally valid. That's the problem with the English language. It is not unambiguous.

So you've basically just argued against yourself.

The English language has a little thing called "context" and there is no way to arrive that interpretation while remaining within the context. It is an *opinion* that it means actual bear arms, but because it does not follow from the context, this opinion is not a valid one.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
deusvult wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Clever bit of sophistry, FLite, but the Swarmsuit is 1 item, and its description says it is clothing.

But is clothing the same thing as Clothing?

Not necessarily, and that's the crux of the issue.

I think that is the crux of the issue. And I do consider it unlikely that the writers thought of using the SoMG to create a Swarmsuit, but we can only speculate at the RAI, and anyway, it's hardly relevant. If we players think of things the writers didn't, then that is just good and creative playing, and the very soul of the game.

In a nonPFS game, it is the DM's call. Since the purpose of PFS is to sell PFS products, and that he who buys the cool books gets the cool benefits.

I think PFS DMs need compelling evidence to rule against the customer, and I don't think the argument against successfully bears the burden of proof.

And that is one of the most horrible mindset possible: the player is a consumer that should be satisfied and the GM is some kind of clerk that should work for him.

Exactly how much you are paying your GM for that service?

In PFS play, his viewpoint is largely correct. The GM is rewarded (albeit not monetarily) for GMing PFS scenarios. These GMs are expected to run these scenarios as written and follow the rules that are written, not their opinions. If there are GMs that do not like this, they should not be PFS GMs. It's simple really. If you do not like the player using Sleeves of Many Garments to turn their garments into a Swarmsuit in PFS play, please save your (irrational in my opinion) dislike for such a thing for your home campaign and follow the rules as you are expected to.


Anzyr wrote:
The English language has a little thing called "context" and there is no way to arrive that interpretation while remaining within the context.

In apparent spite of your claim that context is king, you've provided no reason to think that the context of the item in question is not referring to the Clothing category, as listed in both the Core Rulebook and Ultimate Equipment. *shrug*

Oh, I'll repeat my question to you for the third time, which you ignored the first two times. Maybe third times' the charm, eh?

Rudy2 wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Except it doesn't say "anything on the Clothing chart" it says Clothing, which is again why there is only one valid interpretation. And if there was a weapon that was not on the light melee weapon chart, that nonetheless had in its description that it was a light melee weapon, then yes it would obviously be a light melee weapon.
Do feats that require a light melee weapon say "any weapon on the light melee weapon chart"?

Oh, and GMs aren't, and never will be, your clerks or servants. They are not your waiters, either. Or perhaps you'd like to start leaving monetary tips? When I GM a scenario, it's because no one else wants to. Believe me, I'd much, much rather be playing.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Having someone basically telling me dismissively "nothing", is a bit irritating.

"You can't make it into a Swarm Suit, because that's not in the Clothing section"

Does Not Equal

"Your item does nothing."

In addition to the insane disguise potential, you can also get the environmental bonuses of the various outfits.


Swarmsuits are both Adventuring Gear AND Clothing, just like a set of overalls. They are only mentioned in the gear section as opposed to both for economy of space in the book, and because they have utility that has to be described in detail. The Swarmsuit is a useless item unless you adventure in it at 1/2 speed, since it takes 1 minute to put on (like Light Armor). The Sleeves make it useful without slowing the party to a crawl, and I don't see a problem with that.

Liberty's Edge

Anzyr wrote:
Rudy2 wrote:

If it pleases you, I suppose. The argument is really remarkably simple. It's that the sleeves of many garments can change clothing into anything on the Clothing chart.

Just as a "light melee weapon" are weapons under the chart "Light Melee Weapons", and not any melee weapon that might be described as being light, due to being made of mithral, or whatnot.

I recognize that you can view it in your manner as well, but there is no grounds for saying that limiting it to the Clothing chart, in the same way that a "light melee weapon" is limited to the "light melee weapon" chart, is absurd.

Except it doesn't say "anything on the Clothing chart" it says Clothing, which is again why there is only one valid interpretation. And if there was a weapon that was not on the light melee weapon chart, that nonetheless had in its description that it was a light melee weapon, then yes it would obviously be a light melee weapon.

Claws and unarmed strikes? So if have a Transformative light weapon it can become a fist or a claw?


Anzyr wrote:
The English language has a little thing called "context" and there is no way to arrive that interpretation while remaining within the context. It is an *opinion* that it means actual bear arms, but because it does not follow from the context, this opinion is not a valid one.

I agree, context is everything.

Now let's extend your argument to its (or at least a) logical conclusion:

Sleeves of Many Garments wrote:
The wearer of these sleeves can, when she slips them on, choose to transform her current garments into any other non-magical set of clothing. These new clothes fit her perfectly and are always clean and mended unless she specifically designates otherwise. When she removes the sleeves, her clothes revert to their original form.

Assertion 1: Any item described as or containing the word 'clothing' counts as a non-magical set of clothing.

Assertion 2: How the item is categorized in the source book is not relevant.

Therefore, the Sleeves of Many Garments can transform into a Swarmsuit but cannot transform into a Cold Weather Outfit

Cold-Weather Outfit wrote:
This outfit is designed for mountaineering or hunting and traveling in icy climates. It includes a coat of wool or thick animal fur, a linen shirt, a wool cap, a heavy cloak, a heavy skirt or pants, and waterproof leather boots. In some regions, the outfit may be composed primarily of fur and animal pelts. This outfit grants a +5 circumstance bonus on Fortitude saving throws against exposure to cold weather.

(note the lack of the word clothing)


Rudy2 wrote:
In addition to the insane disguise potential, you can also get the environmental bonuses of the various outfits.

Given it doesn't change what you actually look like I am not seeing that it has any real disguise potential. If you want to disguise yourself buy a Hat of Disguise, that's what it is designed for.

I buy them for on demand hot/cold weather suits and swarmsuits. In a certain recent scenario we also found some weird holy radioactivity suits. In the unlikely event a similar situation ever appears again I suppose they might be able to mimic them as well.

Personally I have no issue at all allowing them to become swarm suits. I can certainly see how a far more conservative view might disallow it but personally I think that approach is wrong as the suit specifically calls itself clothing. Ruling them out I consider requires a fairly antagonistic player versus GM mentality that I prefer to avoid.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I really hope you guys FAQ the crap out of this one only to get a "no response required" result returned to you.

You guys really are splitting hairs. It seems obvious to me that it was intended to take the form of clothes such as the swarm suit.


(btw, I'm not saying this is how I'd rule as a PFS GM. I'm just defending what seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable interpretation).

Grand Lodge

Rudy2 wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Having someone basically telling me dismissively "nothing", is a bit irritating.

"You can't make it into a Swarm Suit, because that's not in the Clothing section"

Does Not Equal

"Your item does nothing."

In addition to the insane disguise potential, you can also get the environmental bonuses of the various outfits.

You misunderstand.

There are some saying that it provides none of the benefits, of any clothing, which is, basically, saying it does nothing.

Swarmsuit, or no Swarmsuit, the thing should provide me with a coat to keep me warm, at least.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
andreww wrote:
Given it doesn't change what you actually look like I am not seeing that it has any real disguise potential. If you want to disguise yourself buy a Hat of Disguise, that's what it is designed for.

Turning it into a city guard uniform, for example, or a servant's outfit, on the fly has enormous disguise potential.


Ravingdork wrote:
I really hope you guys FAQ the crap out of this one only to get a "no response required" result returned to you.

*sigh* I do wish seeing a "no response required" answer didn't leave you wondering whether they just didn't feel like bothering with it, though.

Grand Lodge

Rudy2 wrote:
andreww wrote:
Given it doesn't change what you actually look like I am not seeing that it has any real disguise potential. If you want to disguise yourself buy a Hat of Disguise, that's what it is designed for.
Turning it into a city guard uniform, for example, or a servant's outfit, on the fly has enormous disguise potential.

It does not actually provide any disguise bonus.

Liberty's Edge

Rudy2 wrote:

Tiny Coffee Golem,

First, your implication that I don't understand the word "category" is unnecessary. There is no reason, either in the English language, or in pathfinder, that Clothing could not be regarded as a "category" of items.

Second, you are correct that the types of melee weapon are spelled out as categories, which lends some credence to your argument. However, in referencing the Core Rulebook just now, I noticed the same is not true for armor. Light, Medium and Heavy armor are not, as far as I can honestly tell, defined as categories explicitly. Rather, the existence of the armor chart, and the divisions therein, are taken to define armor, and the categories of armor, implicitly. That's all I'm doing for clothing.

Anyzr,

Rudy2 wrote:
Do feats that require a light melee weapon say "any weapon on the light melee weapon chart"?

Further, I hope you do make as much noise as possible about this. At the very least it can only lead to official clarification that Swarm Suit is not a valid use, because the people who make these decisions do understand balance issues.

I do worry, though, that they might just ban the item completely, as they did for Bracers of Falcon's Aim. That's honestly not something I'd like to see.

Phrasing the equipment pages it speak of size categories for weapons, not of weapon categories.

PRD wrote:
Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons: This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon's size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.

and so on.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
It does not actually provide any disguise bonus.

*sigh* Sadly, I guess the lack of a direct numerical bonus may be relevant for PFS.

In general, I would think it fairly odd for a GM to say "Well, being able to create a copy of the guard's uniform doesn't actually help you disguise yourself as a guard."

EDIT: Oh, and thanks for the other clarification. Apologies for misunderstanding you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You see, the problem with just saying "it says clothing, so it's Clothing. End of story" is that there are numerous and far more important examples where this approach does not work. Standard Attacks vs. the Attack Action vs. In Place of a Melee Attack. Humanoid vs. humanoid.

The language is too vague and the ruleset too imprecisely defined to be able to make such definitive statements without clarification.

And the fact that you seem completely unwilling to even entertain another point of view just makes me want to argue for it that much more.

Liberty's Edge

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Rudy2 wrote:
andreww wrote:
Given it doesn't change what you actually look like I am not seeing that it has any real disguise potential. If you want to disguise yourself buy a Hat of Disguise, that's what it is designed for.
Turning it into a city guard uniform, for example, or a servant's outfit, on the fly has enormous disguise potential.
It does not actually provide any disguise bonus.

You can even attempt to pass as a guard if you are dressed as travelling merchant? As a noble invited to a banquet if you are dressed as a beggar?

I would give you a circumstance bonus to the disguise check as a minimum, allow or disallow some other check, and could allow you a disguise check without spending "1d3 × 10 minutes" to apply your disguise. It is not "nothing". It could add circumstance bonuses to other checks too, like a bluff check to pass as a guard.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Rudy2 wrote:
andreww wrote:
Given it doesn't change what you actually look like I am not seeing that it has any real disguise potential. If you want to disguise yourself buy a Hat of Disguise, that's what it is designed for.
Turning it into a city guard uniform, for example, or a servant's outfit, on the fly has enormous disguise potential.
It does not actually provide any disguise bonus.

True, but for clever usage like that I would give a circumstance bonus to disguise.


Diego Rossi wrote:

You can even attempt to pass as a guard if you are dressed as travelling merchant? As a noble invited to a banquet if you are dressed as a beggar?

I would give you a circumstance bonus to the disguise check as a minimum, allow or disallow some other check, and could allow you a disguise check without spending "1d3 × 10 minutes" to apply your disguise. It is not "nothing". It could add circumstance bonuses to other checks too, like a bluff check to pass as a guard.

You might be wearing a guards uniform but I still doubt you look much like a guard unless most city guards are carrying a wide range of weird material weapons, potent looking magical items and bags full of crampons, rope and alchemist fire.


Just to make this thread intersting, the swarmsuit is actually listed under outfits if you look on the Pathfinder SRD, so it is as valid a use as a cold or hot weather outfit.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:
Just to make this thread intersting, the swarmsuit is actually listed under outfits if you look on the Pathfinder SRD, so it is as valid a use as a cold or hot weather outfit.

If you mean d20pfsrd, that's not an official resource at all. The PRD (which is the official one) lists swarmsuits only under the "Adventuring Gear" heading.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm just finding it hilarious how much of a debate this is. "Oh no Swarms aren't as good if someone uses 200gp to take up their bracers slot!"


Jeff Merola wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Just to make this thread intersting, the swarmsuit is actually listed under outfits if you look on the Pathfinder SRD, so it is as valid a use as a cold or hot weather outfit.
If you mean d20pfsrd, that's not an official resource at all. The PRD (which is the official one) lists swarmsuits only under the "Adventuring Gear" heading.

It's close enough for most people, and shows that it isn't all that unreasonable to treat the swarmsuit as clothing. At the very least, it shows that it is on par with the cold weather outfit or hot weather outfit in terms of actual effects in game.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Just to make this thread intersting, the swarmsuit is actually listed under outfits if you look on the Pathfinder SRD, so it is as valid a use as a cold or hot weather outfit.
If you mean d20pfsrd, that's not an official resource at all. The PRD (which is the official one) lists swarmsuits only under the "Adventuring Gear" heading.
It's close enough for most people, and shows that it isn't all that unreasonable to treat the swarmsuit as clothing. At the very least, it shows that it is on par with the cold weather outfit or hot weather outfit in terms of actual effects in game.

A third-party source really shouldn't be "close enough" in a rules debate.


Jeff Merola wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Just to make this thread intersting, the swarmsuit is actually listed under outfits if you look on the Pathfinder SRD, so it is as valid a use as a cold or hot weather outfit.
If you mean d20pfsrd, that's not an official resource at all. The PRD (which is the official one) lists swarmsuits only under the "Adventuring Gear" heading.
It's close enough for most people, and shows that it isn't all that unreasonable to treat the swarmsuit as clothing. At the very least, it shows that it is on par with the cold weather outfit or hot weather outfit in terms of actual effects in game.
A third-party source really shouldn't be "close enough" in a rules debate.

You'd be surprised at the number of people who claim Hero Lab as a valid source for rules adjudication.


Scavion wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Just to make this thread intersting, the swarmsuit is actually listed under outfits if you look on the Pathfinder SRD, so it is as valid a use as a cold or hot weather outfit.
If you mean d20pfsrd, that's not an official resource at all. The PRD (which is the official one) lists swarmsuits only under the "Adventuring Gear" heading.
It's close enough for most people, and shows that it isn't all that unreasonable to treat the swarmsuit as clothing. At the very least, it shows that it is on par with the cold weather outfit or hot weather outfit in terms of actual effects in game.
A third-party source really shouldn't be "close enough" in a rules debate.
You'd be surprised at the number of people who claim Hero Lab as a valid source for rules adjudication.

In general, how valid a source someone considers a non-Paizo source tends to be directly linked to whether it supports or undermines their claims. If HeroLab is on your side, then it's totally a valid source, and if pfsrd undermines you it's invalid even when it's directly quoting the paizo rules.


Jeff Merola wrote:
A third-party source really shouldn't be "close enough" in a rules debate.

In this case, though, they aren't making any new rulings, they are simply organizing things in a slightly different way that all but the pickiest of rules lawyers would simply gloss over. So, in this case, it really is close enough, if even the people doing the formatting isn't officially Paizo.


Ravingdork wrote:

I really hope you guys FAQ the crap out of this one only to get a "no response required" result returned to you.

You guys really are splitting hairs. It seems obvious to me that it was intended to take the form of clothes such as the swarm suit.

This. So many times this.

I'm amazed this conversation has gone on as long as it has for something so pedantic and incredibly situational.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
A third-party source really shouldn't be "close enough" in a rules debate.
In this case, though, they aren't making any new rulings, they are simply organizing things in a slightly different way that all but the pickiest of rules lawyers would simply gloss over. So, in this case, it really is close enough, if even the people doing the formatting isn't officially Paizo.

Reorganizing the content of the different tables, including in them elements that aren't included in the rules, is rewriting the rules.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If the Sleeves of Many Garments provide illusory clothing instead of being transformative of clothing, then it doesn't really matter what clothing the Sleeves can be used to represent as there is no mechanical bonus to be derived from them. You could use the Sleeves to present a suit of full plate and it still wouldn't matter as the suit of full plate does not provide any mechanical bonus. The Sleeves then become a purely role playing device and any bonuses accrued from their use are purely at the GMs discretion and count as circumstance bonuses.

If, on the other hand, the Sleeves are transformative, then the clothing you obtain provides mechanical bonuses and it becomes important what is considered clothing for the purpose of the Sleeves. The simplest and clearest ruling is to rule that clothing is only what is found on a Table of Clothing in an official rule book (e.g. Table 2-9 in the Ultimate Equipment). Ruling this way closes the door on argument as to what is and isn't clothing.

If clothing can be something other than what is on such a Table, then the rule becomes murky at best, because now the GM has to make a decision as to what is and isn't clothing. If a swarmsuit is clothing, then why can't armor be considered clothing? After all, people wear armor like they wear clothing. Some adventurers never take their armor off. There is even an armor called "Armored coat", coats clearly being a form of clothing, not to mention "Chain shirt" where shirt is clearly another form of clothing. In fact, the description of Full plate reads:

This metal suit comprises multiple pieces of interconnected and overlaying metal plates, incorporating the benefits of numerous types of lesser armor. A complete suit of full plate (or platemail, as it is often called) includes gauntlets, heavy leather boots, a visored helmet, and a thick layer of padding that is worn underneath the armor. Each suit of full plate must be individually fitted to its owner by a master armorsmith, although a captured suit can be resized to fit a new owner at a cost of 200 to 800 (2d4 100) gold pieces.

Clearly full plate is clothing because it is a "suit" comprised of many parts (much like a swarmsuit) and is "worn".

If you think that being able to obtain a suit of full plate from the Sleeves is ridiculous, I would respond that under this reading of RAW it is no more ridiculous than obtaining a swarmsuit. It is irrelevant to this reading of RAW what mechanical bonuses you obtain and how much you normally need to pay for getting a suit of full plate. It is only relevant that armor (especially such clear examples as Armored coat and Chain shirt) is considered clothing and the Sleeves allow you to transform your clothing from one type into another.

It is to avoid arguments like the one above that limiting clothing to the Table entitled "Clothing" in an official rule book (e.g. Table 2-9 in the Ultimate Equipment) is how the rule should be interpreted. Any other ruling leads to madness.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Another simple ruling would be to go with anything that is designated as (mundane) clothing (via its appearance on the clothing tables, or being called such in its description) that doesn't also appear on the armor tables.

In short, "anything that is designated as clothing and not armor qualifies."


Diego Rossi wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
A third-party source really shouldn't be "close enough" in a rules debate.
In this case, though, they aren't making any new rulings, they are simply organizing things in a slightly different way that all but the pickiest of rules lawyers would simply gloss over. So, in this case, it really is close enough, if even the people doing the formatting isn't officially Paizo.
Reorganizing the content of the different tables, including in them elements that aren't included in the rules, is rewriting the rules.

Again, though, how many people are really going to care about the difference in this case? Paizo themselves called the swarmsuit clothing in the actual description, and it could easily be listed only once under gear to save space and because they didn't feel like reworking the clothing chart for whatever reason, so they threw the swarmsuit in the next most logical location. I get the categories argument, but some categories are definitely looser than others, and not everything always gets placed in the most logical place. Throw in the fact that all of the equipment section has been changed, breaking down tents from torches for readability, and it becomes much harder to argue that they are changing much beyond formatting.

Like I said earlier, while a case can be made to not count the swarmsuit as clothing, it's thin enough to be not worth risking upsetting a player over something that has no long term impact on the game. And it makes dealing with swarms, something very difficult all the way up to the mid levels, that much easier, expanding what I as a DM can throw at a party without them being overwhelmed. It's a win for them, it's a win for me. No point in getting pedantic about what chart it was formally published under.

Grand Lodge

One arguement for the SoMG being an illusionary change is that its external mechanics almost exactly match glamored armor, except that glamored armor has a higher caster level:

SoMG:
Aura faint illusion; CL 1st
Slot wrist; Price 200 gp; Weight 1 lb.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, disguise self; Cost 100 gp

Glamored Armor:
Aura moderate illusion CL 10th
Slot armor quality; Price +2,700 gp; Weight —
Construction
Requirements Craft Magic Arms and Armor, disguise self; Price +1,350 gp

SoMG:
The wearer of these sleeves can, when she slips them on, choose to transform her current garments into any other nonmagical set of clothing.

Glamored Armor:
Upon command, a suit of glamered armor changes shape and appearance to assume the form of a normal set of clothing.

Would you say that if I have Glamored Armor, I can turn it into a swarm suit? It says the armor retains its properties, but it doesn't say it can't gain additional ones, and it says it changes it's shape, and a swarm suit gets its protection from its shape.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Until there is an official PFS ruling there are going to be disappointed players and frustrated GMs at organized play tables. It's quite clearly open for interpretation (As evidenced by this thread) and due to the preponderance of swarms, PFS players with this solution are going to be common.

I think I was at Nefreet's table (or it happened at another) where the player wanted to use the swarm suit ... you could see the player was pleased to be able to utilize his solution, only to be disappointed to be told it was not valid. The player said that he only made the purchase because other PFS GMs said it was valid. To keep things going Nefreet made the choice to allow it and move forward, but the confrontation still happened, and no-one wants that.

Sczarni

Yup. That was me.


Ok, for all those saying only something on the clothing list counts, what about the Dilettante's Outfit? It's listed under Gnome Equipment and therefore isn't under the clothing list, but it clearly calls itself clothes.

Sczarni

Those are listed in a different book.


How does it matter what book or list clothing is in?

And I'm more curious why ski's, snowshoes, skates and Jewelry seem ok too (as they'd seem more tool adventuring tool than clothes). Filter hoods and swarmsuits seem a much better fit as clothes than iceskates.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Thanks for the fun session Nefreet! We need to fail some to enjoy the successes right?! I was the Gnome Paladin and had my 11 yr old with me (A druid).

You handled the situation well, and I see the arguments on both sides. That's why I think we need a PFS ruling on it so we can be consistent.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RyanH wrote:

Thanks for the fun session Nefreet! We need to fail some to enjoy the successes right?! I was the Gnome Paladin and had my 11 yr old with me (A druid).

You handled the situation well, and I see the arguments on both sides. That's why I think we need a PFS ruling on it so we can be consistent.

I have yet to see a single even vaguely convincing argument that Swarmsuit isn't clothing. The mere fact that it is also adventuring gear is rather irrelevant when the item in question says that is clothing. And since it is both clothing and non-magical Sleeves of Many Garments can transform your current garments into it. Super simple. The only argument the other side has is "I don't like it."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Luckily, we don't need to convince you, as that would make debate on any rules issue pointless. I'm also not impressed by your swaggering certainty in winning the argument when you flatly ignored the question I addressed to you three separate times.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

@Anzyr: I like the swarmsuit idea, so I can rest assured if you're ever my PFS GM I'm set. At any other table it'll be a crap shoot ... hence I support getting an official PFS ruling.

Edit: Of course that would negate half of all PFS Obstacles!


Yeah, an actual answer would be best all around; obviously if they say it's okay, I'll go with that. And immediately get Sleeves of Many Garments for all of my characters. Here's to getting the FAQ answered *crosses fingers*


RyanH wrote:
Edit: Of course that would negate half of all PFS Obstacles!

Tell me about it. If we get official confirmation that this works, my higher level character will likely buy extras, to lend to other party members.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
"RyanH wrote:
Edit: Of course that would negate half of all PFS Obstacles!

Good lord PFS encounters sound one dimensional. No wonder Crane Wing got nerfed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"All clothing is clothing, but some clothing is more clothing than other clothing. Especially if that clothing is made from pig."
--what George Orwell would say if he saw this thread.

101 to 150 of 443 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can Sleeves of Many Garments Produce a Swarm Suit? All Messageboards