Armor for Unusual Creatures question?

[Murdock Mudeater]

Does the Humanoid / Non-Humanoid cost and weight listed for the Armor (CRB, page 153) for unsual creatures apply based on creature type? Or just the general shape of the creature the armor was made for?

Example, does my Efrit character (Outsider) pay x2 the normal cost when buying armor for themselves, since they are not humanoid?

[Chess Pwn]

no, just the general shape of biped is needed.

[toastedamphibian]

Generally human shape. Something like a gargoyle or something with extra arms would probably need to pay more, even if they only have 2 legs.

[Murdock Mudeater]

Just for sake of arguement, do you have a page number/quote which supports this argument? (There probably is one).

The way it's written, definitely seems like it could go either way. And their example is a horse, which is both non-humanoid in shape and non-humanoid in creature type.

[avr]

Why would an ifrit pay more than an elf or human for armor? They're well within the size and proportion ranges of those and aside from (very small) horns on the brow they don't have any unusual body parts which need to be accommodated.

[Murdock Mudeater]

avr wrote:

Why would an ifrit pay more than an elf or human for armor? They're well within the size and proportion ranges of those and aside from (very small) horns on the brow they don't have any unusual body parts which need to be accommodated.

Rules are rules....?

Seriously, I don't really know. Don't understand the anatomy of outsiders, nor do I really understand why some outsiders don't just have the humanoid creature type. If being humanoid is really about shape, then you'd think the Ifrit would be humaniod, anyway,

But that isn't really my question. Book says humanoids pay one cost, non-humanoids pay another cost. If it isn't about creature type, but about shape, why doesn't it say "creatures that are approiximately human in shape?"

[dragonhunterq]

humanoid is both a shape and a type. Context matters and the fitting of armour is obviously about the shape of the creature and not it's type.

[toastedamphibian]

Murdock Mudeater wrote:

Just for sake of arguement, do you have a page number/quote which supports this argument? (There probably is one).

Nope and Nope!

But it's okay. Just remind the DM that zombies, skeletons, zombies, half-dragons, etc are also all non-humanoids, and thus their armor is worth twice as much if a PC's armor costs more.

Or just, you know, let common sense prevail.

[James Risner]

The rules are all about context and the better at interpreting the context, the less the rules seem arbitrary, confusing, or wrong.

[Murdock Mudeater]

Speaking of context, what are the penalties for wearing armor that isn't designed for your creature type, but is you size?

For example, if my human ranger decides that the barding for his wolf, is better than nothing after than sundering orc destroyed his armor, can he wear the "unusual" armor? And if so, what is the effect? What if he uses the "Shrug On" feat?

[James Risner]

No rules allowing, generally means not allowed.

Ask your GM for a house rule allowing.