Celestial Armor
Aura faint transmutation [good]; CL 5th; Weight 20 lbs.; Price 22,400 gp
DESCRIPTION
This +3 chainmail is so fine and light that it can be worn under normal clothing without betraying its presence. It has a maximum Dexterity bonus of +8, an armor check penalty of –2, and an arcane spell failure chance of 15%. It is considered light armor and allows the wearer to use fly on command (as the spell) once per day.
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
Craft Magic Arms and Armor, fly, creator must be good; Cost 11,350 gp
One of my players has raised the question saying this stacks in Hero Lab while to the best of my knowledge no wearable armor stacks.
Stacks with what?
|
Keep in mind HeroLab is Third Party, and is often prone to errors.
I imagine your player means "wearing Celestial Armor as an undershirt with other armor on top", right?
If that is the case, the burden of proof lies on your player to show that two Armor bonuses can be stacked (they can't). It's not your job to disprove your player.
Celestial Armor
Aura faint transmutation [good]; CL 5th; Weight 20 lbs.; Price 22,400 gpDESCRIPTION
This +3 chainmail is so fine and light that it can be worn under normal clothing without betraying its presence. It has a maximum Dexterity bonus of +8, an armor check penalty of –2, and an arcane spell failure chance of 15%. It is considered light armor and allows the wearer to use fly on command (as the spell) once per day.
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
Craft Magic Arms and Armor, fly, creator must be good; Cost 11,350 gp
One of my players has raised the question saying this stacks in Hero Lab while to the best of my knowledge no wearable armor stacks.
With the exception of a few types of bonuses (Circumstance, Untyped and Dodge, for example), bonuses of the same type do not stack with themselves. Even if they did, subjects from the same source (Armor) do not stack.
Here's a Core quote:
Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.
The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don't generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
Additionally, the Core Rulebook cites Armor as a 'slot,' and with the exception of the Rings slot, you can only ever have one working at a time. So there are two reasons why the PC can't stack his armor with other armor. (There are piecemeal rules and the Armored Kilt, but those follow their own separate rules.)
I use hero lab and it does not stack even in hero labs. It actually gives a validation error when you equip more than one suit of armor. What it does stack with is a Celestial shield.
Keep in mind HeroLab is Third Party, and is often prone to errors.
I laughed at prone to errors
Its actually pretty accurate. They even get things correct before the offical faq because of their line to paizo.
For example, the courageous property worked how it does in the faq well before the faq was released, because paizo told them that is how it works
That's how SKR said it was supposed to work (which was done when he was no longer an employee of Paizo), and the way that was portrayed made it an unofficial statement, since the claim was to a 3rd party publisher on an e-mail not associated with Paizo directly. Paizo themselves have said that unless a FAQ or Errata is released, the developer statements are unofficial, so while SKR may have said something to them, that claim held no water.
It was only errata'd recently to how it works now. In fact, that's the sole reason it was errata'd; the even funnier part is that SKR's message of intention didn't 100% match up to the current errata, as it had a logical inconsistency.
That's how SKR said it was supposed to work (which was done when he was no longer an employee of Paizo), and the way that was portrayed made it an unofficial statement, since the claim was to a 3rd party publisher on an e-mail not associated with Paizo directly. Paizo themselves have said that unless a FAQ or Errata is released, the developer statements are unofficial, so while SKR may have said something to them, that claim held no water.
It was only errata'd recently to how it works now. In fact, that's the sole reason it was errata'd; the even funnier part is that SKR's message of intention didn't 100% match up to the current errata, as it had a logical inconsistency.
I question your timeline. I am pretty sure the e-mail was in 2013 and he left Paizo in 2014. As he was involved at the time of its Ultimate Equipment's publishing he seems to be a viable source for determining original intent.
I hardly believe it was the sole reason it was FAQ'd and exists currently as a proposed errata. I'd like to see your source for that bit of information. You can certainly find debates about the property long before his e-mail to herolabs finding people who felt it was overpowered or not written as intended.
As for his reply not being identical to the eventual proposed errata. You can find that, on any Dev post that years later bares resemblance to an FAQ or errata. Things change after years and a different person was the final author. And it taking years to go from board post to official FAQ/errata is actually pretty standard for Paizo.
Fair enough on the timeline part, even I'm not that keen on that sort of thing, especially when the thread was made after he quit the PDT. Though, it doesn't change my point; unless it is FAQ or Errata, it's not official, and since SKR never made a post (that I or any other poster saw) about it on the Paizo website, there was no other source besides the supposed e-mail to Herolabs.
I'm the one who actually made the thread that caused the Dev Team to act, and therefore caused the Errata to occur, and the only 'official' doubt on that thread was made only because of the e-mail SKR sent to the Herolab producers. (The other was power balance, but if there's anything I've learned from Paizo products, it's that the players involved make their own balance for their own games, so that's not a legitimate reason to disprove the RAW.)
Here's what it said:
The Courageous Weapon power (Ultimate Equipment pg. 138) says “The wielder gains a morale bonus on saving throws against fear equal to the weapon’s enhancement bonus. In addition, any morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source is increased by half the wielder’s enhancement bonus (minimum 1).” Our reading of this is that the second part is referring to other morale bonuses to save vs. fear – for example, a fighter’s Bravery ability – those abilities are increased in strength, so that this weapon power isn’t useless for fighters. Others read this as improving all morale bonuses to anything else on the character – they’re usually adding it to a barbarian, to improve the rage bonuses. It seems that improving rage to 1½x its normal strength is a very powerful effect, which should cost much more than the +1 bonus with this weapon, so we wanted to verify how it should be used.
The second part should only affect morale bonuses to saves (fear or otherwise).
For simplicity, the italicized part is what Herolabs wrote to SKR, and the bolded part is what SKR wrote back. (Looking back, I would prefer SKR's interpretation to the current errata.) Further re-evaluating, SKR used the term "should," meaning that it's expected, but not definitive (suggesting that it's not official, FAQ, Errata, or otherwise).
Although you are correct in that SKR couldn't influence the Errata decision, Bulmahn, whose been with Pathfinder's development since square one, still has the final say. Since Bulmahn ruled this way, it would've overruled what SKR originally said, even if SKR was a part of the Errata decision (meaning his 'unofficial' statement was just that; unofficial).
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
That's how SKR said it was supposed to work
It was only errata'd recently to how it works now.
Hero Lab, as a primary partner, has a direct channel to the rules team to get authoritative rules answers. This used to be handled by SKR when he was on the rules team, and required the rules team to agree on the ruling. So not every rules query from Hero Lab got answered.
This one was answered years ago, and you can find it in Hero Lab forums where they post the SKR response from this direct support channel. When they post the FAQ they included a change in wording (called Errata) to make it less likely to be misunderstood.
Thanks guys that is what I was thinking and reading as well thank you.