M'kay,
So my Sunday group, who are all quite intelligent individuals who love nothing more than finding ways to "break" D&D have come up with a potentially legal way to armor a SHIRT. Not a Chain Shirt. A SHIRT.
Take your above-average tailor and say he can make Masterwork Shirts (Why not? Modern day folks pay tons of money for high-end shirts and we could call them Masterwork). So, a shirt, which normally costs, what, couple of coppers, maybe, silver at most, and add in the Masterwork Armor amount of 150gp. Your shirt is now of incredible quality, likely of silk or satin or something equally rare (Elven silversilk, spidersilk or somesuch). It is now Masterwork Quality, and... according to these guys, can be Enchanted per the armor rules in the back of the DMG.
Thus, you can get a +5 BIKINI. Wear that with a +5 Natural Armor amulet and a Ring of Protection and you've got a base AC of 25. Sure, there are cheaper ways of getting the same armor class, but this is without an armor check penalty, without any spell failure chances...
Is this legal? I like it if only for the fact that one of my bizarre characters would like nothing more than to run around with nothing more on than a ring, an amulet and something to keep them within legal limits. A Masterwork strip of cloth seems like it's breaking the rules, but HEY, if you can afford it...
O_o
Syrinx
|
M'kay,
So my Sunday group, who are all quite intelligent individuals who love nothing more than finding ways to "break" D&D have come up with a potentially legal way to armor a SHIRT. Not a Chain Shirt. A SHIRT.
Take your above-average tailor and say he can make Masterwork Shirts (Why not? Modern day folks pay tons of money for high-end shirts and we could call them Masterwork). So, a shirt, which normally costs, what, couple of coppers, maybe, silver at most, and add in the Masterwork Armor amount of 150gp. Your shirt is now of incredible quality, likely of silk or satin or something equally rare (Elven silversilk, spidersilk or somesuch). It is now Masterwork Quality, and... according to these guys, can be Enchanted per the armor rules in the back of the DMG.
Thus, you can get a +5 BIKINI. Wear that with a +5 Natural Armor amulet and a Ring of Protection and you've got a base AC of 25. Sure, there are cheaper ways of getting the same armor class, but this is without an armor check penalty, without any spell failure chances...
Is this legal? I like it if only for the fact that one of my bizarre characters would like nothing more than to run around with nothing more on than a ring, an amulet and something to keep them within legal limits. A Masterwork strip of cloth seems like it's breaking the rules, but HEY, if you can afford it...
O_o
Syrinx
I feel like this is more in lines with Bracers of Armor. I don't see why the enchantment on a pair of bracers couldn't also be on a shirt (or pants, or ring, or amulet, or...). It would also give a little more credence to the enchanted shirt option (as well as be a little more useful than a straight "Armor" bonus being a force effect).
The "Masterworked" aspect of a shirt seems kind of silly in game terms. I never thought of the bracers being "Masterworked" or a ring being "Masterworked". I guess that it kind of makes sense even though it really doesn't have much "in-game" mechanics to it.
Overall I don't have too much of an issue with it, but I think that I would define a "bikini of armor" having the same or similar properties as a pair of Bracers of armor.
Hope this helps.
I don't think it should be too much of a problem as long as you (as DM) enforce some of the more obscure rules. Magic Item slots and such. No stacking.
I believe there was also an optional rule that said if you were to make something weird - like goggles of giant strengh (eyes having no relation to strength) the cost of the item would be 150%. If all they want is an AC bonus, though, give it to them. But then they can't wear magic armor or bracers of armor. Shouldn't be too hard to keep them from munchkining out magic shirts
While the idea of a "Bikini of Heavy Fortification" granting immunity to critical hits and sneak attack damage is kind of silly, it's really not much sillier than a Buckler doing the same thing, which is also completely legal. As long as you don't let them gain the benefits of wearing armor on top of it, there shouldn't be a problem. Because the Armor "slot" and the Wrists are separate, it would technically be legal (I think) for them to wear +1 Clothes with an extra +9 worth of enhancement bonuses and then wear Bracers of Armor to make up for the low armor bonus of the clothes. It's a little bit exploitive, but it also sacrifices two magic item slots to make it work.
It's actually entirely possible to need those magic clothes or bracers of natural armor to avoid being slowed down by your armor, if you manage to get inherent bonuses to your dexterity. Once your dexterity hits 28, even Padded Armor is going to be feeling clunky.