"Mark Seifter, Mark Seifter, Mark Seifter!"You dare summon me out of turn, mortal? For your hubris, I now declare Sleeves of Many Garments a necromancy effect that binds the souls of the dead to your body, torturing them until they yield the form of clothing, and since all necromancy is evil, they turn your character evil for using them.
Huzzah! Another way to make paladins fall!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm of the opinion it is illusiory on the grounds that the item grants no mechanical bonuses nor does it indicate it does. People seemed to pick up on a lack of bonus to disguise while insisting it grants dr/10 vs swarms.
On the disguise thing the benefit is the sleeves remove giant penalties and can easily allow a character to shift roles as he moves through an area.. more or less bluffing someone to think your a guard ..or the new stage coach driver..or cook.. is much easier if you dress the part.
On a final note somone in one of the previous pages implied the sleeves at 200 to are bad if all they do is illusion with no bonuses. Ask yourself this..in rl how much do people pay for the sort of clothing the garment can emulate?
It's soul powered? At least that explains why it's so cheap. It's the Evil discount.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I forgot to add I find the idea it is soul powered awesome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wakedown, are you a bard using Pageant of the Peacock?
Did you see his bluff roll? He could convince us he's Jesus with skills like that.
I think both sides made their points, and barring another non-silly post I'm more than happy with where this debate went. Anzyr and troops are convinced it provides mechanical benefits and anything that could (logically? be considered clothing is a valid thing to transform into. Me an a few others are convinced that unrelated to what they can transform into, the clothes are illusions and don't provide explicit mechanical benefit other than blending in. I think they're fair interpretations. Like N N I was debating more for wanting to figure out whether the logic of "a spell must cause an appropriate item effect" was sound reasoning or not and carried out by the legal items.
Now, onto making a character that wields pinned halflings as bludgeoning weapons and using the souls of those bludgeoned to death to power the Sleeves of Evil Garments!
LOL For me it all boiled down to the text of the item. When I read it, I never would have imagined someone would say it was an illusionary effect. It just doesn't read that way to me. Then looking at the rules, I found nothing to change that first impression.
That said, I'm cool with it's being necromancy! I should be able to stay neutral by using it and summoning good creatures! :P
|
Not at all, fit perfectly depends on the item of clothing. A straight jacket can fit you perfectly and most definitely impedes your movement.New argument.
Clothes that fit perfectly do not impede movement. (By definition, clothes that impede movement would be fitting badly.)
Swarm suit impedes movement.
SoMG cannot make a baggy heavy outfit like a swarm suit because they cannot make clothing that doesn't fit perfectly.
::)
That depends on your bonus to the Escape Artist skill :-P
So you are saying Disguise self can only make you look like someone else if their clothes only appear to fit perfectly, not if their clothes actually fit perfectly?
No, he's saying that an illusion can only makes thing look or appear to look like something. The way it's written isn't that of an illusion. If it's meant to be an illusion, it's very poorly written. If it's meant to be a transformation, then it's written well.
On you second post Flite, the end of the line solves that issue. "unless she specifically designates otherwise". I'd assume if you're making a swarmsuit, you WANT to make one.
Except that if we assume that the word transform refers to changing the appearance of your clothes, not changing your actual clothes, then the "fits perfectly / always clean" also applies to this illusionary appearance. So it is just fine.
Sorry, that inference doesn't come naturally to me. It's counterintuitive to read it as an illusion. I'd need to see that 'appear' in there, or some other overt suggestion, it come to the conclusion it's an illusion.
Lets be totally honest, if the section with the illusion aura and the need spells was missing, would you read that item as making an illusion? Or are you making the text fit as an illusion only after reading that?
Except that if we assume that the word transform refers to changing the appearance of your clothes, not changing your actual clothes, then the "fits perfectly / always clean" also applies to this illusionary appearance. So it is just fine.
Sorry, that inference doesn't come naturally to me. It's counterintuitive to read it as an illusion. I'd need to see that 'appear' in there, or some other overt suggestion, it come to the conclusion it's an illusion.
Lets be totally honest, if the section with the illusion aura and the need spells was missing, would you read that item as making an illusion? Or are you making the text fit as an illusion only after reading that?
How do you explain the clothes remaining "always clean and mended" if it is a physical transformation?
How do you explain the clothes remaining "always clean and mended" if it is a physical transformation?Except that if we assume that the word transform refers to changing the appearance of your clothes, not changing your actual clothes, then the "fits perfectly / always clean" also applies to this illusionary appearance. So it is just fine.
Sorry, that inference doesn't come naturally to me. It's counterintuitive to read it as an illusion. I'd need to see that 'appear' in there, or some other overt suggestion, it come to the conclusion it's an illusion.
Lets be totally honest, if the section with the illusion aura and the need spells was missing, would you read that item as making an illusion? Or are you making the text fit as an illusion only after reading that?
Um... Cleaning and mending are illusion effects? They seem to mimic Prestidigitation and Mending and that's universal and transmutation. So what parts wouldn't work with transformation again? I'm not seeing your question actually improving your point/position.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gate Guard Bob: Can you believe those Pathfinders trying to sneak in the lord's manor yesterday by impersonating guards like us?
Gate Guard Joe: Yeah, no kidding. Good thing it was raining and we were able to apply the mud test.
Gate Guard Bob looks up at the crystal clear sky and winces slightly at the bright sun.
Gate Guard Bob: What do we do today to make sure there's no Pathfinders trying to sneak in with those sleeves?
Gate Guard Joe shuffles through a desk in the guard station.
Gate Guard Joe: I've got these scissors here. We just try to cut a little piece from the shirt's collar and see if it comes off or automatically fixes itself.
Gate Guard Bob gives Gate Guard Joe a thumbs up.
Gate Guard Joe: Or listen real close for the voices of thousands of tiny souls screaming in agony...
How do you explain the clothes remaining "always clean and mended" if it is a physical transformation?Um... Cleaning and mending are illusion effects? They seem to mimic Prestidigitation and Mending and that's universal and transmutation. So what parts wouldn't work with transformation again? I'm not seeing your question actually improving your point/position.
Because the Sleeves are a one-and-done, on/off deal: "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." The sleeves transform your garments into non-magical clothing. Non-magical clothing doesn't remain "always clean and mended." So do the sleeves constantly clean and mend the clothing? Even if they did, that's not "always clean and mended". That's "cleans and mends as needed".
What's more intuitive? That the explicitly non-magical clothing is magically protected from dirt and harm, or that it is an illusion that maintains the appearance of cleanliness?
FWIW, I think the item is poorly worded and/or constructed. I think aspects of it absolutely imply a physical transformation, while other aspects--such as what I refer to above--do not seem to follow through on that logic.
If I put on the Sleeves, get doused with mud, and then take them off, what happens? "When she removes the sleeves, her clothes revert to their original form." What's the original form? My original clothes in their original state? My original clothes, covered in mud? Do the Sleeves actually protect my clothing from dirt and damage while in the transformed state?
But my position has never been "it's an illusion." My position has been "ruling it is an illusion is a reasonable interpretation." I think ruling it is a physical transformation is also a reasonable interpretation. That they are both (to me) reasonable interpretations tells me that either something's wrong with the description or that the rules aren't meant to be airtight and that a certain amount of GM interpretation is required and intended.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that if we assume that the word transform refers to changing the appearance of your clothes, not changing your actual clothes, then the "fits perfectly / always clean" also applies to this illusionary appearance. So it is just fine.
Sorry, that inference doesn't come naturally to me. It's counterintuitive to read it as an illusion. I'd need to see that 'appear' in there, or some other overt suggestion, it come to the conclusion it's an illusion.
Lets be totally honest, if the section with the illusion aura and the need spells was missing, would you read that item as making an illusion? Or are you making the text fit as an illusion only after reading that?
yes. My interpretation of what the item does is based on the mechanics. If the scenario said "the wizard casts major image, and a adult red dragon emerges from the tunnel, cutting off their escape," would you be arguing that the dragon was real because the scenario didn't say the dragon appears to emerge?
redward: It states the transformation is an on/off deal. That doesn't have anything to do with the other abilities it has. From how it reads, it seems that the new outfit never gets dirty or damaged. The sleeves are still magic even if the new clothes aren't.
As I've said above, I can only read it as a physical transformation. It just doesn't read as an illusion to me. To do so, I have to take things out of the context given to me in the text(IMO). I opt for the intuitive reading that it's physical.
As to your questions, I'd say:
"When she removes the sleeves, her clothes revert to their original form." What's the original form?: What ever you had on in the same condition it was in when you activated the sleeves.
My original clothes in their original state?: Yep!
My original clothes, covered in mud?: How? They weren't the clothes hit and the 'new' clothes can't get dirty.
Do the Sleeves actually protect my clothing from dirt and damage while in the transformed state?:That's what it says it does.
I honestly don't see the aspects that imply illusion. Everything in the text, IMO, implies physical change.
yes. My interpretation of what the item does is based on the mechanics. If the scenario said "the wizard casts major image, and a adult red dragon emerges from the tunnel, cutting off their escape," would you be arguing that the dragon was real because the scenario didn't say the dragon appears to emerge?Except that if we assume that the word transform refers to changing the appearance of your clothes, not changing your actual clothes, then the "fits perfectly / always clean" also applies to this illusionary appearance. So it is just fine.
Sorry, that inference doesn't come naturally to me. It's counterintuitive to read it as an illusion. I'd need to see that 'appear' in there, or some other overt suggestion, it come to the conclusion it's an illusion.
Lets be totally honest, if the section with the illusion aura and the need spells was missing, would you read that item as making an illusion? Or are you making the text fit as an illusion only after reading that?
So, the text and it's context mean nothing? You're taking how you think the item should work and trying to make the text fit your preconceived notion of how it works instead of reading the text and figuring it out? If there WHERE actual mechanics to base your actions on, you'd have a point. However there is no rule to base that on. Nothing say the spell used to make the item MUST relate to the power.
In you dragon question, you have a direct cause and effect. Spell to dragon and you can read the exact rules for such in the actual spell text. There is a disconnect in the item. You have spell needed to enchanting to item to effect. Simple math went out the door as soon as we hit a step that isn't defined by the rules. I can't read Disguise Self to find out how the item works after all.
My case in point is still the Backbreaker Mail. It uses the Disguise Self and has an illusion aura but no illusion abilities to point to. It's clear that you aren't required to include illusion abilities with an illusion aura/Disguise Self spell. As I said above, I'd need an overt mention of illusion IN THE TEXT to think that the sleeves clothes are illusions.
The mechanics (aura, spell required) *are* the context. The context is the things surrounding the text.
They would be if there where any rule to back that up. I still haven't heard the context that the illusion aura and the Disguise Self give Backbreaker Mail. You seem fine saying none of that items abilities are illusionary. The fact is, they don't offer any concrete context. If it did, I'd see the armor use some kind of illusion.
To be clear, the 'mechanics' you speak of are used in it's construction and it radiates the school of those spells. The missing part is that those spells don't have to have a direct influence in the abilities of the item.
Let me point out an item that's clear it's an illusionary effect.
Western Star (Normal) Ioun Stone
As a standard action, its user can alter his appearance as with a disguise self spell."
If the sleeves did this, why not say it easily, simply and straight forward. 'The wearer of these sleeves can, when she slips them on, alter the appearance of his clothes as with a disguise self spell. When she removes the sleeves, the illusion ends.' That saves a lot of print AND makes it crystal clear it's an illusion. Instead, it reads as a transformation effect...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Prisoner Andy leans in close in the prison's library to Prisoner Red and speaks in a low whisper.
Prisoner Andy: So, I've been tunneling out of my cell at night while everyone sleeps.
Prisoner Red: Is that so? What are you doing with all the dirt?
Prisoner Andy: That's why I'm talking to you, I haven't figured out how to dispose of it yet.
Prisoner Red: Oh, I got an idea Andy. You just give me a couple days and make sure you bring a large cup of water and a cup with the dirt you're digging. Mix 'em together first and make sure it's nice and muddy.
A few days pass and Prisoner Andy and Prisoner Red meet up again in the library. Prisoner Red's clothes look a little less threadbare than usual.
Prisoner Andy: So, what's your great idea to get rid of all this... mud?
Prisoner Red: Go ahead, Andy. Rub the mud all over my prison shirt. Go on now, do it quick before someone comes by.
Prisoner Andy looks surprised, but nonetheless rubs the entire contents of the cup of mud all over Prisoner Red's shirt.
Prisoner Red: Now, that's a right good job Andy. Now watch this.
Prisoner Red's clothing suddenly disappears revealing a middle-aged man in his underwear. He seems to fuss with some sort of sleeves for a moment before his prison garb reappears and the entire cup's worth of mud has magically vanished as if never existed in the first place.
Prisoner Andy: Holy hells Red, how'd you manage that?
Prisoner Red: Oh, it's a trade secret. Now what are you waiting for? Go fetch another cup of mud while it's still light out!
Prisoner Q: Who was stupid enough to let us in prison with our magic items?...
|
|
Overheard in the park as two middle class Taldan women chat. One is nursing a young infant. The other's newborn is sleeping peacefully in a stroller.
Lucy: Oh Diane, you look so tired!
Diane: Yes, yes, I know. A half-Ulfen child is a lot of work! Little Lawrence has such the appetite and there's been no end to the changing. We're going through over a dozen diapers a day!
Lucy nods in complete understanding.
Diane: Little John looks so peaceful. How are you managing? What's your secret?
Lucy gets a knowing look and pulls Little John from his stroller.
Lucy: Oh, for the price of a year's worth of diapers I have quite the *magic* solution!
Lucy tugs Little John's diaper slowly away from his soft skin and shows Diane that her son has soiled his diaper. She seems to tickle his wrists slightly and the diaper completely disappears, along with its less-than-desirable "passenger".
Lucy: Now, I take a simple damp cloth and clean here and here... and, presto! No dirty diaper!
Lucy once again touches Little John's wrists and a fresh diaper magically reappears on her son.
Diane: ...
Diane: Cloth diapers cost you 200gp a year? Are you buying silk? You shouldn't be paying 2 gp for a year!
Sorry guys, I couldn't keep away. =P
They would be if there where any rule to back that up.Unless I missed it, there's no rule that says you can use a spell for an effect that's unrelated to the spell's normal use. So you don't have rules to back you up either. You don't get to default to the "correct" position if there's no rules backing you up. =P
Yes there are no rules either way so you should take the item's text at face value... IMO that means it's NOT an illusion. I'm defaulting to the 'correct' position because that how the text reads. I'm not the one trying to make the aura/spell change the items functions.
The highest level spell used for the Backbreaker Mail is the level 3 spell Beast Shape I (I do not know the reason for the use of Disguise Self. Summon Monster I, on the other hand, is used to create the human bane effect). Since the other two spells are level 1, the aura should only be Transmutation. So Backbreaker Mail is not compliant with RAW and thus has no bearing on this discussion.
No, it has EVERYTHING to do with this discussion. It proves that not every item follows the general rule. Since we don't know what goes on behind scenes with item creation, we have to take items at face value and NOT read things into them.
Before it's brought up again, this is the same for Greater Hat of Disguise; the aura should be Transmutation not Illusion by the same logic. Items found in modules do not undergo as thorough of a review process as rule books and thus are usually not the best source to pin an argument on.
Again ,this just proves that what you're doing is a fools errand. Not every magic item neatly fits into the 'box' you want it to be it. When I give items that prove it, you dismiss them offhand. You don't seem to get that this isn't simple math like 1+1=2. They use some formula we don't know. You know, those unwritten rules that are all the rage these days..
Not intended to offend, but it seems that you have selective reading skills and are either knowingly or accidentally misinterpreting the argument. I'll break down what is actually being argued.
To be honest, I've been wondering the same about you. I've clearly stated what i think and given examples that you just brush off because they don't fit your argument.
1-4. I have no idea how they constructed the PRD items. I know they made a nifty section in there about making magic item and they state "Not all items adhere to these formulas." So I AGAIN tell you that not every item fits nicely into a box of A+B=C. What you have is a general rule about magic items and detecting their aura. You are trying to extend that rule into a rule about the effect an item can produce. Even if that was a PC rule, the rules themselves say that Pathfinder doesn't always follow the PC's rules when creating magic items.
Bottom line, I understand what you are trying to do, I just don't agree that anything in the aura/spell requirement sections overrules the actual item text. When I read the item, it reads transformation. To read it as an illusion, I'd have to force words into an unnatural context to make that happen. So I don't, and go with the reading that naturally flow IMO.
However, just because something could be said in a simpler fashion does not mean we can draw (valid) conclusions based upon that.
My point that it was very easy to make it sound like a illusion and make it clear. They, however, make it very clear that it was a transformation. Is it possible they meant it to be an illusion? I doubt it, but there are always statistical anomalies.
I think this debate breaks down into 2 main groups.
Group 1 reads the items text and thinks the item actually does what it says it does.
Group 2 reads the text then reads the aura/spell section and returns to the text to figure out how it can be read to fit them.
Group 3: The group I honestly don't think exists. They read the text and said 'That's an illusion' without any influence from the aura/spell section.
I agree that those are the groups. But only Group 1 is actually reading the rules and applying them (weird right?). Group 2 is trying to pull in rules from other sections and apply them even though they don't apply in this situation in order to give a false backing to their argument. Group 3 isn't trying at all and evidently thinks that Sleeves are OP if they give the benefit of... real clothing. Because Reasons.
You know when you break down into groups like that it makes it really easy to see who is actually reading and applying the rules. I like it!
