RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
There is absolutely nothing preventing you from crafting a masterwork t-shirt and using Craft Magic Arms & Armor to make a +5 t-shirt of invulnerability or whatever you fancy. There are a few robes that are designed to be used in the "armor" slot for spellcasters, but there's no reason why you can't enhance clothing in the same way.
I can't find a rule that says all armor must have an arcane spell failure chance, but then again, there is no base armor with 0% Arcane Spell Failure. The lightest armor in the core rules is Padded Armor which provides +1 AC and has 5% Arcane Spell Failure.
Is this specifically intended to make wizards deal with spell failure if they want to take advantage of their armor slot? Or is it just because having armor with +0 AC bonus and 0% Arcane Spell Failure typically makes no sense, i.e. none is listed to avoid confusion.
Here is an example to help make the question clearer, but this is just an example: Can an item like Masterwork Silk Armor be crafted? It would an "armor slot" item that provides +0 AC and has 0% Arcane Spell Failure, and it could be used to create +1 Silk Armor of Spell Resistance.
It was so wizards/sorcerers would not wear armor. The restricted movement in heavier armor is the fluff behind it.
Sorry, but the answer still isn't clear because the thread of responses all revolved around a "shirt" being worn in an armor slot, and that's not right as far as I can see. From the section on Magic Items On The Body: robes are "body slot" items, shirts are "chest slot" items, and suits of armor are the only "armor slot" items.
It was so wizards/sorcerers would not wear armor. The restricted movement in heavier armor is the fluff behind it.So when you say wizards are not allowed to wear armor... is the Masterwork Silk Armor example (+0 AC, 0% spell failure) legal or not?
I am not saying a wizard can not wear armor. I am saying it was done to highly discourage it.
The Armor slot is the the same as the Chest slot, you cannot wear both at the same time. So to focus in on specifically armor is a misgnomer. Yes you could wear the silk armor provided you are proficient with no spell failure. There are also feats to reduce the chance, as well as enchantments.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Armor: suits of armor.
Belts: belts and girdles.
Body: robes and vestments.
The armor slot is really the body slot, but this needs to be errata'd.
This had never occured to me however while i can find nothing concrete in the RAW the armor rules would seem to indicate that anything in the armor slot will have some form of arcane failure chance
Arcane Spell Failure Chance
Armor interferes with the gestures that a spellcaster must make to cast an arcane spell that has a somatic component. Arcane spellcasters face the possibility of arcane spell failure if they're wearing armor. Bards can wear light armor and use shields without incurring any arcane spell failure chance for their bard spells.
Casting an Arcane Spell in Armor: A character who casts an arcane spell while wearing armor must usually make an arcane spell failure check. The number in the Arcane Spell Failure Chance column on Table: Armor and Shields is the percentage chance that the spell fails and is ruined. If the spell lacks a somatic component, however, it can be cast with no chance of arcane spell failure.
I'd say you can have "zero armour" to use on the armour slot. It has +0 to ac, no max dex, no arcane failure, no armour check penalty, no speed reduction. It's not really armour for restrictions like a monk's.
However, you could take that stuff and ensorcel it to get an enhancement bonus to its AC and other armour enhancements. It would basically be bracers of amour for a different slot (one I'd say won't incur the +50 off-site penalty you get for items that are not on the proper slot)
Wizards can take advantage of thier armor slot, but it's not intended that they do so for AC. They do so for things like magic robes, like a robe of blending.
That's not true: Robes go on the body slot, which is for robes or vestments. Armours go on the armour slot, which is for armour. And then there's also the chest slot for things like mantles, shirts, vests.
The armor slot is really the body slot, but this needs to be errata'd.Armor: suits of armor.
Belts: belts and girdles.
Body: robes and vestments.
Who says? Any official word on this? Because they're on their 4th printing now, and it hasn't been changed. I doubt nobody ever noticed this, thinking it was an error, so I think this is intentional.
Here is an example to help make the question clearer, but this is just an example: Can an item like Masterwork Silk Armor be crafted? It would an "armor slot" item that provides +0 AC and has 0% Arcane Spell Failure, and it could be used to create +1 Silk Armor of Spell Resistance.
If you look in the Adventurer's Armory (or the 3.5 Pathfinder Campaign Setting), there's an armored kilt with 0% arcane spell failure. You don't even need to make a new type of armor in your case.
The armor slot is the body slot.Sorry, but the answer still isn't clear because the thread of responses all revolved around a "shirt" being worn in an armor slot, and that's not right as far as I can see. From the section on Magic Items On The Body: robes are "body slot" items, shirts are "chest slot" items, and suits of armor are the only "armor slot" items.
To add to this the prd should read: 3.5 srd
One robe or suit of armor on the body (over a vest, vestment, or shirt).
Who says? Any official word on this? Because they're on their 4th printing now, and it hasn't been changed. I doubt nobody ever noticed this, thinking it was an error, so I think this is intentional.The armor slot is really the body slot, but this needs to be errata'd.Armor: suits of armor.
Belts: belts and girdles.
Body: robes and vestments.
They have not fixed a lot of things. The druid issue about being able to get the shield bonus. There is a direct contradiction about whether or not SLA's can be counterspelled. The only reason I know the prd is wrong is because I used to play 3.5. I am sure most of us came from 3.5 so we never noticed it. If it was intentional then as written armor is its own slot. You don't see too many armor wearing wizards so it may not matter a whole lot though.
The armor slot is the body slot.
To add to this the prd should read: 3.5 srd
One robe or suit of armor on the body (over a vest, vestment, or shirt).I just want to be sure I have this right... and thank you so much for this info!
The prd (which and needs errata) says:
15 items can be worn at once
Armor is one slot (armor)
Robes or Vestments is one slot (body)
Mantle or Shirt or Vest is one slot (chest)The prd SHOULD say:
14 items can be worn at once
Armor or Robes or Vestments is one slot (body)
Mantle or Shirt or Vest is one slot (chest)Because the 3.5 srd says:
Robe or Armor is one slot
Vest or Vestment or Shirt is one slot
Correct.
the +50 off-site penalty you get for items that are not on the proper slot)
Does that penalty exist in Pathfinder? Can you give me a reference?
I thought they did away with it.
The armor slot is the body slot.
To add to this the prd should read: 3.5 srd
One robe or suit of armor on the body (over a vest, vestment, or shirt).I just want to be sure I have this right... and thank you so much for this info!
The prd (which and needs errata) says:
15 items can be worn at once
Armor is one slot (armor)
Robes or Vestments is one slot (body)
Mantle or Shirt or Vest is one slot (chest)The prd SHOULD say:
14 items can be worn at once
Armor or Robes or Vestments is one slot (body)
Mantle or Shirt or Vest is one slot (chest)Because the 3.5 srd says:
Robe or Armor is one slot
Vest or Vestment or Shirt is one slot
the PRD does not need errata, because robes was changed in pathfinder. the text is quite clear.
in this case armor can be worn with robes and a mantle. Though its a change it's not that complicated as it's quite clearly worded.
Just remember that you can only ever have one armor bonus (the highest prevails)so a robe that grants a +5 armor bonus would not stack with +1 leather armor. the +5 robe would override the leather. You could still wear them together although it would have no game effect.
The armored kilt is a new item and it breaks the typical armor rule of no spell failure chance. but keep in mind that the kilt does not hinder arm, shoulder, or waist movement for somatic components. Whether you could make a 0 armor bonus armor would really be up to your GM, or in the case that you are the GM, whether you want to allow it. There really is no examples of 0 AC bonus armor other than the kilt and it makes sense why it would have have no arcane spell failure. a finely made shirt is still a shirt, it is not armor. as others have said i think magic vestment can be made permanent.
im not sure exactly WHY you are so intent on making such an armor for the 1st place. there are already means for spellcasters to get armor bonuses, armor spell, bracers, armor and take the spell failure chance, to name a few. If your just trying to circumvent spell failure chance for the sake of wearing armor thats the hole point of Arcane Armor Training.
%5 ASF is really low, i have a dwarf in our party in Mythral studded leather and next level he plans on taking Arcane Armor Training. he has yet to actually fail a spell...
whether your GM would allow Mythral studded leather though is another call but there's always padded armor.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
To the best of my knowledge (and I am just one of the monkeys typing away here), the Body and Armor slots were separated on purpose as part of the general increase in magic item slots available compared to 3.5. (ETA: Ninjaed by RunebladeX)
KaeYoss has an excellent point: it's highly unlikely this would have just "passed by" the editors at the 4th printing. And it definitely is not a copy/paste error since this is notably different from the 3.5 SRD--and if it's notably different from the 3.5 SRD, this increases the likelihood it was intentional (and the 3.5 SRD does not EVER supercede the PRD).
The new magic item slots are one of the many "small" overlooked changes from 3.x to Pathfinder, in my experience.
For reference, this is what the PRD says the item slots are, direct quote:
Magic Items on the BodyMany magic items need to be donned by a character who wants to employ them or benefit from their abilities. It's possible for a creature with a humanoid-shaped body to wear as many as 15 magic items at the same time. However, each of those items must be worn on (or over) a particular part of the body, known as a “slot.”
A humanoid-shaped body can be decked out in magic gear consisting of one item from each of the following groups, keyed to which slot on the body the item is worn.
Armor: suits of armor.
Belts: belts and girdles.
Body: robes and vestments.
Chest: mantles, shirts, and vests.
Eyes: eyes, glasses, and goggles.
Feet: boots, shoes, and slippers.
Hands: gauntlets and gloves.
Head: circlets, crowns, hats, helms, and masks.
Headband: headbands and phylacteries.
Neck: amulets, brooches, medallions, necklaces, periapts, and scarabs.
Ring (up to two): rings.
Shield: shields.
Shoulders: capes and cloaks.
Wrist: bracelets and bracers.
Note that according to RAW, now in its 4th Printing, you can wear Armor AND a Robe and a Shirt.
MorganS: To your query, in my opinion, the simplest, strictest answer to your question is this:
There is no +0 AC 0% Spell Failure Chance Armor listed in the Core Rules or in the Advanced Gear.
Therefore, any such item that you are proposing, such as the "Silk Armor," is a homebrew item and would have to be approved by your GM.
I would speculate that the definition of "armor" is a "wearable item over the torso and possibly other parts of the body that naturally, without magical enhancement, provides an armor bonus to Armor Class." In my own games, I would not allow such an item--a magically enhanced silk vestment with +0 normal AC bonus enhanced to magically have an armor bonus would be a Wondrous Item---and indeed, occupy the Shirt or Body slot, not the Armor slot. But that's just my opinion. There is nothing in RAW that I can find at a quick glance that supports nor denies this.
If you want to play a Wizard or Sorcerer and wear armor, since you are burning a feat or multiclassing to get armor proficiency anyway, you may as well take the Arcane Armor Training feat while you're at it. While it takes a Swift Action to activate, this will make Padded and Leather Armor effectively have no Arcane Spell Failure chance. Alternately, you can live with the 5% chance of failure, which at the end of the day isn't horrible.
As an aside, the existence of the Arcane Armor Training and Mastery feats also suggests to me that armor is not intended to ever have 0% spell failure chance, but again, that is my own interpretation. Just some thoughts to chew on or spit out as you will.
What about the armored kilt
Not in the Pathfinder Core or Advanced rules (or even the Pathfinder Companion Adventurer's Armory), so no clue.
Is that even a Pathfinder RPG item at all? I know it's in some Pathfinder Companion/Chronicles/Adventure Pack/Some other Thing I Don't Read/own but wasn't that for 3.5?
|
|
Not in the Pathfinder Core or Advanced rules (or even the Pathfinder Companion Adventurer's Armory), so no clue.Is that even a Pathfinder RPG item at all? I know it's in some Pathfinder Companion/Chronicles/Adventure Pack/Some other Thing I Don't Read/own but wasn't that for 3.5?
It's in the campaign setting and updated in Adventurers Armory (pg 18)
It's in the campaign setting and updated in Adventurers Armory (pg 18)
Not in the Pathfinder Core or Advanced rules (or even the Pathfinder Companion Adventurer's Armory), so no clue.Is that even a Pathfinder RPG item at all? I know it's in some Pathfinder Companion/Chronicles/Adventure Pack/Some other Thing I Don't Read/own but wasn't that for 3.5?
Ah! Thank you. Okay: I was looking in the wrong place in the Adventurer's Armory.
But:
All I can find is the description that if you add one to light armor it makes the armor medium and if you add one to medium armor it makes it heavy. I can't find stats for it (is it in an updated printing?). And it sounds like it's not something you can wear by itself, it's just an add on.
Sorry if I'm getting off topic here.
|
|
It's in the campaign setting and updated in Adventurers Armory (pg 18)
Not in the Pathfinder Core or Advanced rules (or even the Pathfinder Companion Adventurer's Armory), so no clue.Is that even a Pathfinder RPG item at all? I know it's in some Pathfinder Companion/Chronicles/Adventure Pack/Some other Thing I Don't Read/own but wasn't that for 3.5?
Ah! Thank you. Okay: I was looking in the wrong place in the Adventurer's Armory.
But:
All I can find is the description that if you add one to light armor it makes the armor medium and if you add one to medium armor it makes it heavy. I can't find stats for it (is it in an updated printing?). And it sounds like it's not something you can wear by itself, it's just an add on.
Sorry if I'm getting off topic here.
Adventurer's Armory has stats for weapons/armor on the inside front cover, and stats for other equipment on the inside back cover.
It's kind of an odd way to do it, but Gods and Magic does a similar thing.
Armored kilt
Cost 20 gp
Armor bonus +1
Max Dex +6
Armor Check Penalty 0
Arcane Spell Failure 0%
Speed 30 ft.
Wt. 10 lbs.
The only reason I know the prd is wrong is because I used to play 3.5.
So the part where rogues can sneak attack almost everything is wrong, too? Because it was not like that in 3.5....
Seriously: PFRPD changed things. That was the whole point (or at least a big point). This is one of the changes, not an error that was right in 3.5 and is now wrong.
The only reason I know the prd is wrong is because I used to play 3.5.So the part where rogues can sneak attack almost everything is wrong, too? Because it was not like that in 3.5....
Seriously: PFRPD changed things. That was the whole point (or at least a big point). This is one of the changes, not an error that was right in 3.5 and is now wrong.
They changed that and made it pretty obvious that it was not a mistake, and it has been clarified enough times on the boards that even if I did not catch it I would know it.
Maybe they did change it. Another poster made a good point after I last responded to your post.