The Tetori and Iron Body

[Nine Iracaedes]

Just to clarify, when a tetori uses their iron body ability, it impairs them as though they were wearing heavy armour? I can't find any mention of an exemption to the normal effects armour has on monks, and it seems strange that the ability would have such a steep built-in handicap. The immunities and resistances are great, though a monk who is 19th level is probably going to benefit more from their AC bonus being stacked than mitigating a relative pittance of the damage they're likely to incur without it. Intentional trade off, or am I just overlooking an obvious exception?

[Archaeik]

Iron Body wrote:

School transmutation; Level sorcerer/wizard 8

Casting Time 1 standard action

Components V, S, M/DF (a piece of iron from an iron golem, a hero's armor, or a war machine)

Range personal

Target you

Duration 1 min./level (D)

This spell transforms your body into living iron, which grants you several powerful resistances and abilities. You gain damage reduction 15/adamantine. You are immune to blindness, critical hits, ability score damage, deafness, disease, drowning, electricity, poison, stunning, and all spells or attacks that affect your physiology or respiration, because you have no physiology or respiration while this spell is in effect. You take only half damage from acid and fire. However, you also become vulnerable to all special attacks that affect iron golems.

You gain a +6 enhancement bonus to your Strength score, but you take a –6 penalty to Dexterity as well (to a minimum Dexterity score of 1), and your speed is reduced to half normal. You have an arcane spell failure chance of 35% and a –6 armor check penalty, just as if you were clad in full plate armor. You cannot drink (and thus can't use potions) or play wind instruments.

Your unarmed attack deals damage equal to a club sized for you (1d4 for Small characters or 1d6 for Medium characters), and you are considered armed when making unarmed attacks.

Your weight increases by a factor of 10, causing you to sink in water like a stone. However, you could survive the lack of air at the bottom of the ocean—at least until the spell duration expires.

It only lists those 2 penalties for being counted "as if" wearing armor.

You still aren't wearing armor.

However, it does appear that if you are not proficient in heavy armor, the listed armor check penalty would apply to all your attacks.
This can't possibly be the intent either, but nothing I see suggests that just because your body is the armor, you don't suffer the effects of an "armor check penalty, just as if you were clad in full plate".

Pertinent question, does an Iron Golem suffer such an armor check? (obviously not to attacks, but to skills?)

[Kazaan]

I think what it means is that you have ASF and Armor Check penalty which just so happen to be equal to what you'd have if you were wearing Full-Plate so as to be thematically appropriate. It doesn't mean you count as wearing armor nor does it apply armor check to attack rolls if you aren't proficient but it's more to set up an referential analogy.

[Archaeik]

I understand what they intended to say, but that it not what it literally says.

If you apply the ACP "as if" you are wearing a specific armor(full plate), your attacks automatically check if you have the proficiency.

If it said "you apply a penalty to str/dex skill checks equal to the ACP of full plate(-6). This penalty overlaps with any ACP you currently have." that would be different.

[Kazaan]

That's not what it explicitly says. It does, however, literally say that, just in an implicit manner rather than explicit. It's impossible to explicitly lay out all the rules by the fundamental limitations of language; you can't make a rulebook of infinite length. Language is all about the interplay of explicit and implicit meaning so you can't blithely dismiss it simply by conflating "implicit" with "imaginary" or "explicit" with "literal".

PRD wrote:

You have an arcane spell failure chance of 35% and a –6 armor check penalty, just as if you were clad in full plate armor.

This is the pertinent line. It doesn't say that you "count as" wearing armor or anything like that. What it literally says is that you suffer 35% ASF and -6 ACP, just as if you were clad in full plate armor. This is noting Full-Plate as a reference for these penalties. But Full-Plate also grants +9 AC bonus which this effect lacks. Normal Full-Plate reduces your land speed from 30' to 20' (or 20' to 15' if you're small) but this effect cuts it by half. Full-Plate doesn't normally give any of the other benefits the spell grants. Thus, we have these two competing conclusions:

1) You count as if you were wearing full-plate, thus, lacking proficiency, you suffer ACP to attack rolls and it counts as armor for a Monk.

2) The line is referential and you do not count as wearing full-plate; you simply take equivalent ACP to skill checks and ASF.

Considering, also, that this is a Wizard/Sorc spell with a range of Personal, it can only be cast on oneself so, in addition to the lack of evidence to count the line as an explicit statement of limitation, it's also very unlikely that a spell like that would be designed for a full-caster. Thus, the most logical conclusion is that it is a referential statement to show that the penalties are based on those of full-plate.

[Archaeik]

You are arguing RAI, I am arguing RAW

I never said I would play it the way I interpret it RAW, but it is incorrectly written. What I am saying is the appropriate place to start is RAW.

Bringing up the rest of the properties of full plate is also unnecessary, the spell is explicit in saying that it only functions like full plate in exactly two ways. (which is why a monk doesn't need to worry about losing his class features)

If you take a penalty "as if X", you can't apply it preferentially in one situation and not in another; but that is exactly what the intent is here.

[Kazaan]

As I said, written language involves both explicit and implicit meaning. Just because it's implicit doesn't mean it isn't RAW. Intent is an entirely separate subject and, while tangentially related, I'm still presenting RAW here; It says you take certain penalties "just as if" you were clad in full plate armor. It does not say the effect of the spell "counts as" wearing full-plate armor. RAI was provided in addition to as supplemental support, but the crux of the argument that you entirely glossed over is that the words don't mean what you claim they mean (regardless of what you recognize as intent). To put it bluntly, the RAW doesn't take armor proficiency into consideration nor limitations on Monk abilities and the RAI supports it (which is what I presented) and you incorrectly claim that RAW does say that it considers armor proficiency (it doesn't) even though you suspect that is not in accordance with what you expect to be RAI. All because you conflated Implicit RAW with RAI.

[blahpers]

RAW, it applies to anything a full plate's armor check penalty would apply to. Is there evidence that "implicit RAW" (or even RAI) would differ?

[Manimal]

Here's another question on this topic:
As a 19th lvl Tetori, when I activate this ability, do my unarmed attacks really nerf from 2d8 to 1d6?