Can Sleeves of Many Garments Produce a Swarm Suit?


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 443 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:

"All clothing is clothing, but some clothing is more clothing than other clothing. Especially if that clothing is made from pig."

--what George Orwell would say if he saw this thread.

"Why are you arguing about the rules in an obscure fantasy game instead of putting forth your efforts against the totalitarian regimes of the world, and the euphemistic confusion employed by power?"

--what George Orwell would actually say if he saw this thread.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Scavion wrote:


Good lord PFS encounters sound one dimensional. No wonder Crane Wing got nerfed.

Half is an exaggeration of course. Actually, I've seen many entertaining encounters with flexible/multiple possible solutions in PFS, even given the rules, and linear type path in most scenarios. Swarms are just a pain in the butt and they are common enough to lead to this thread!


FLite wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:


But are you really saying that PFS characters are not customers and should not be treated as customers?
Scott Wilhelm wrote:


I'm not saying that the rules do not apply to the player, but the rules do apply to the PFS DM, too.

No, actually you are. You said, PFS characters are customers, and therefore you should be treated like a customer. You didn't say anything about GMs.

(Actually, I am working very hard *not* to parse the idea of PFS characters being customers of Paizo, and just assuming you meant the players, cause otherwise this conversation gets all kinds of wierd.)

huh?


Rudy2 wrote:

Personally I have no issue with the warm coat. Based on the description of the item, I don't think there is any grounds for saying that it cannot actually create winter clothing, which is under the Clothing entry of Ultimate Equipment. It's also not in any sense overpowered, because at most its saving you from carrying around Winter Clothing. Not an issue, because if it gets cold there's almost never a reason you wouldn't have the time to change into your winter clothing. This makes it only really good for weak characters who can't carry clothes with them.

Swarm Suit, again this is in my view, is a different case for two reasons. One, it isn't under the Clothing Entry, so it's applicability is debatable. Two, it is a balance issue. Almost no one would consider carrying around an actual Swarm Suit, because if you need it, you pretty much need it instantaneously, and you're not going to have time to change into it. So, in stark contrast to the Winter Clothing example, being able to instantly don it is actually incredibly powerful.

Specific trumps general. The description of the Swarmsuit is more specific than which list it is under. Specifically it is clothing.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Rudy2 wrote:

"These heavy and overlapping layers of clothing, coupled with a wide hat outfitted with a dense, veil-like netting around its brim"

Fine, Anzyr, if you want to play the semantics game, you can have the clothing, but not the veil-like netting, explicitly not part of the layers of clothing; the word that seems to be so important. No DR for you.

You're seriously splitting hairs. How are hats/veils not clothing?

Frankly the fact that this conversation has gone on as long as it has baffles me. It's a magic item that makes clothes. If the swarm suit and it's somehow non-clothing hat are a problem just make a multi-layered burrka (spelling?) that cinches around your boots and gloves. Same effect without the "hat issue."

Actually, it DOES sound reasonable to me that a DM would exclude the veiled hat from the abilities of the Sleeves of Many Garments to make. That would require the character to carry and/or wear the Swarm Hat, and put it on or have it on separately to enjoy the benefits of the SoMG to provide protection as a Move action.

But that is the sort of thing that needs to be adjudicated BEFORE the situation comes up, and that is why we need a resolution to this issue.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Rudy2 wrote:

"These heavy and overlapping layers of clothing, coupled with a wide hat outfitted with a dense, veil-like netting around its brim"

Fine, Anzyr, if you want to play the semantics game, you can have the clothing, but not the veil-like netting, explicitly not part of the layers of clothing; the word that seems to be so important. No DR for you.

You're seriously splitting hairs. How are hats/veils not clothing?

Frankly the fact that this conversation has gone on as long as it has baffles me. It's a magic item that makes clothes. If the swarm suit and it's somehow non-clothing hat are a problem just make a multi-layered burrka (spelling?) that cinches around your boots and gloves. Same effect without the "hat issue."

Actually, it DOES sound reasonable to me that a DM would exclude the veiled hat from the abilities of the Sleeves of Many Garments to make. That would require the character to carry and/or wear the Swarm Hat, and put it on or have it on separately to enjoy the benefits of the SoMG to provide protection as a Move action.

But that is the sort of thing that needs to be adjudicated BEFORE the situation comes up, and that is why we need a resolution to this issue.

The hat is clothes as well. This is very simple. The swarmsuit (all of it) is clothing and is non-magical. Therefore, Sleeves of Many Garments can transform your clothes into it. It's a simple math equation of 2+2=4, where non-magical + clothing = sleevable. It's just basic math.


Rudy2 wrote:

My questioning actually has nothing to do with the description, and everything to do with the fact that the Swarm Suit isn't under the Clothing section, which is what I believe the Sleeves are meant to refer to.

I was actually trying to make a point that semantic games are silly, but I guess I failed in that; apologies.

The Sleeves of Many Garments do not say that they only change your garments into any set of clothing "under the Clothing section." The description says that they turn your garments into any other kind of clothing.

The rules describing the Swarmsuit clearly state that the Swarmsuit is clothing.

But your hat and veil argument sounds legal.

Stepping away from talking about semantics a moment, that would conceptually make the Swarmsuit's hat and veil similar to the Plague Doctor's Suit and the Plague Doctor's Mask.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
"RyanH wrote:
Edit: Of course that would negate half of all PFS Obstacles!
Good lord PFS encounters sound one dimensional. No wonder Crane Wing got nerfed.

Nah. There are some really awesome encounters in PFS, don't let people fool you.

I would be very surprised if there were any ruling on this before Gencon, frankly, and there is a large stack of rulings more important than this that are still hanging. (damage dice increases anyone?)


FLite wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
There is no other valid interpretation that conforms with the English language. If you do not follow this interpretation you are not following the rules.

Actually, a lot of the people feel there are two *other* valid interpretations. If they do not follow your interpretation, all they are doing is not following your interpretation.

One interpretation is that sets of clothing are those things listed as such in the "Clothing" section of the book, and that anything else clothing like is a suit of armor or traveling gear. Certainly, many suits of armor are made up of clothing. Are you saying that the sleeves can turn into those armors?

Another interpretation is that the item clearly says the effect is illusion (aura illusion, not aura transformation) therefore the effect is only an illusion and has no mechanical benefit. Given the description it is most likely a glamor or a figment.

Quote:
Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. Figments and glamers cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements.

The fact that the Sleeves gives off an illusion aura is fishy. And so is the fact that its creation requires Disguise Self. But the fact remains that the Sleeves' description states that it "transforms" your current garments. It does not say that it "makes your garments appear" as anything else. It probably was intended to be a cosmetic item at some point leading up to its publication, but the fact remains that transformation is not illusion, and the rules say "transforms."

Compare this to the travelers any tool, which is transformation, and specifies that it grants bonuses.


Anzyr wrote:
Rudy2 wrote:

My questioning actually has nothing to do with the description, and everything to do with the fact that the Swarm Suit isn't under the Clothing section, which is what I believe the Sleeves are meant to refer to.

I was actually trying to make a point that semantic games are silly, but I guess I failed in that; apologies.

My argument is not semantics. You are attempting to use semantics to bolster your (weak) argument. The fact that it still isn't a very good argument really only highlights how weak your argument is.

I think that is fair to say that silly semantic games make up the bulk of debate on the whole Paizo forum, maybe the entire Internet.

Grand Lodge

Scott, I think I fixed your quote tags?

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
FLite wrote:


Another interpretation is that the item clearly says the effect is illusion (aura illusion, not aura transformation) therefore the effect is only an illusion and has no mechanical benefit. Given the description it is most likely a glamor or a figment.

Quote:
Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. Figments and glamers cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements.

The fact that the Sleeves gives off an illusion aura is fishy. And so is the fact that its creation requires Disguise Self. But the fact remains that the Sleeves' description states that it "transforms" your current garments. It does not say that it "makes your garments appear" as anything else. It probably was intended to be a cosmetic item at some point leading up to its publication, but the fact remains that transformation is not illusion, and the rules say "transforms."

Except that if you look at glamored armor, it also says the armor changes "shape and appearance" which implies that it is not a purely cosmetic illusion, but most people would agree glamored armor is a purely cosmetic illusion.


Rudy2 wrote:

If it pleases you, I suppose. The argument is really remarkably simple. It's that the sleeves of many garments can change clothing into anything on the Clothing chart.

Just as a "light melee weapon" are weapons under the chart "Light Melee Weapons", and not any melee weapon that might be described as being light, due to being made of mithral, or whatnot.

I recognize that you can view it in your manner as well, but there is no grounds for saying that limiting it to the Clothing chart, in the same way that a "light melee weapon" is limited to the "light melee weapon" chart, is absurd.

But their are items that fit in categories that are not on lists. Natural Attacks become Monk Weapons when you apply the Feral Combat Training Feat to them. Medium Armor becomes Light Armor when you make it out of Mithril.

Primary Natural Weapons become Secondary Natural Weapons when used in Conjunction with Manufactured weapons.

Gauntlets are in the Core Rulebook under "Unarmed Strikes" but then became "Light Weapons" in later publications.

The list of actions you can take in conjunction with Maintaining a Grapple are Move, Damage, Pin, and Tie Up, but in the specific description of Tie Up, it says that your opponent has to be "If you have your target pinned, otherwise restrained, or unconscious, you can use rope to tie him up." which means it's NOT just one of the actions you can take when maintaining a grapple, but an action you can only take upon achieving a Pin or something.

Limiting Clothing to "anything on the Clothing chart" may not be absurd, just as limiting "light melee weapon" are weapons under the chart "Light Melee Weapons" also may not be absurd, but it is a demonstrably false argument.

Creative thinking is the very heart and soul of a roleplaying game. I would not be limited to the items on your lists.


FLite wrote:

Scott, I think I fixed your quote tags?

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
FLite wrote:


Another interpretation is that the item clearly says the effect is illusion (aura illusion, not aura transformation) therefore the effect is only an illusion and has no mechanical benefit. Given the description it is most likely a glamor or a figment.

Quote:
Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. Figments and glamers cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements.

The fact that the Sleeves gives off an illusion aura is fishy. And so is the fact that its creation requires Disguise Self. But the fact remains that the Sleeves' description states that it "transforms" your current garments. It does not say that it "makes your garments appear" as anything else. It probably was intended to be a cosmetic item at some point leading up to its publication, but the fact remains that transformation is not illusion, and the rules say "transforms."

Except that if you look at glamored armor, it also says the armor changes "shape and appearance" which implies that it is not a purely cosmetic illusion, but most people would agree glamored armor is a purely cosmetic illusion.

But "transform" implies a real change.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Nefreet wrote:

The problem comes from a Swarm Suit not being an article of "clothing". It's something you wear over clothing, and it is in a different section of Ultimate Equipment. If it were clothing, it would be listed in the "clothing" section.

But it really isn't all that game-breaking to allow it.

+1

It isn't clothing like the Monk outfit, Explorer outfit, etc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I just read through this whole thread and I've come to 2 conclusions

1) People really don't like swarms in PFS nor moving at 15 ft all the time.
2) I became a bit more RAW.

While I do not think it is overpowered for the sleeves to allow one to use a swarmsuit when need be, I don't think it's legal.

Anzyr wrote:
The hat is clothes as well. This is very simple. The swarmsuit (all of it) is clothing and is non-magical. Therefore, Sleeves of Many Garments can transform your clothes into it. It's a simple math equation of 2+2=4, where non-magical + clothing = sleevable. It's just basic math.

I'll go ahead and say that you've been incredibly rude to those with opposing viewpoints to yours, especially through using insinuating "man, how're you so stupid to think that way?" type of remarks.

Onto your point. Paizo's Clothing section. If you do a ctrl+f and type in "clothing", scrolling down you'll notice that out of the 40 listed clothes, only 8 include the word "clothing" in their descriptions. 15 of them include the word "outfit". 19 of them use the word "cloth" or "clothes". Arguing on the basis of the use of word "clothing" or any of its derivatives leads to some interesting things that can't be "sleeved". Entries that do not include those 3 words are Fire-Resistant Boots (boots mentioned), Hat(turban), Hennin (silk), Ice Skates (boots), Jewelry (belts), Kilt (skirt), Mask (fabric), Patchwork Cloak, Pocketed Scarf, Poncho (fabric), Reinforced Scarf, Reversible Cloak (fabric/linen/silk), Skis, Soldier's Uniform ("typically includes sturdy boots, leather breeches or a kilt, a belt, a shirt, gloves, a cloak or jacket, and a hat" none of which is, apparently, "clothing"), Tabard (garment), and Wig.

I sure hope you'll ban those 16 "not clothes" items from being used if you GM since they aren't clothing but are on the Clothing table.

----------
----------

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Limiting Clothing to "anything on the Clothing chart" may not be absurd, just as limiting "light melee weapon" are weapons under the chart "Light Melee Weapons" also may not be absurd, but it is a demonstrably false argument.

I'll be using d20pfsrd for links to feats since they're easier to directly link to than to official Paizo feats and people can correct me if the wording differs substantially.

Feral Combat Training expressly allows a natural attack to be counted as a monk weapon for monk weapon uses.

Mithral armor is treated as one type lighter than it is, even though you still need proficiency with heavy armor if you want to wear Mithral Full Plate without extra penalties.

Example specifically of a primary natural attack becoming a secondary when using manufactured weapons.

Unarmed Strikes are light weapons because they are specifically stated to be. A Monk is specifically stated to get full Strength damage bonus on all unarmed strikes.

Tie Up specifically states that it is an action that can be performed "If you have your target pinned, otherwise restrained, or unconscious," and grappled is a "restrained" condition, so while grappling someone you can attempt to tie them up since it is "as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple" but it "requires a combat maneuver check at a –10 penalty".

What's I'm getting at is, while the description of the Swarmsuit refers to itself as clothing, and the Sleeves of Many Garments say they can turn into any clothing, the only things we know for sure that are classified as clothing are in the Clothing table.

Consider the Transformative weapon enchantment. Would you say that, since a shield with spikes is a piercing weapon, a longsword (one handed weapon) with transformative on it could change into a spiked heavy shield (one handed weapon) and could be used for shield bonuses?

I think Pink Dragon on the previous page said it very well, so I'll quote their ending.

Pink Dragon wrote:
It is to avoid arguments like the one above that limiting clothing to the Table entitled "Clothing" in an official rule book (e.g. Table 2-9 in the Ultimate Equipment) is how the rule should be interpreted. Any other ruling leads to madness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dimminsy wrote:

I just read through this whole thread and I've come to 2 conclusions

1) People really don't like swarms in PFS nor moving at 15 ft all the time.
2) I became a bit more RAW.

While I do not think it is overpowered for the sleeves to allow one to use a swarmsuit when need be, I don't think it's legal.

Anzyr wrote:
The hat is clothes as well. This is very simple. The swarmsuit (all of it) is clothing and is non-magical. Therefore, Sleeves of Many Garments can transform your clothes into it. It's a simple math equation of 2+2=4, where non-magical + clothing = sleevable. It's just basic math.

I'll go ahead and say that you've been incredibly rude to those with opposing viewpoints to yours, especially through using insinuating "man, how're you so stupid to think that way?" type of remarks.

Onto your point. Paizo's Clothing section. If you do a ctrl+f and type in "clothing", scrolling down you'll notice that out of the 40 listed clothes, only 8 include the word "clothing" in their descriptions. 15 of them include the word "outfit". 19 of them use the word "cloth" or "clothes". Arguing on the basis of the use of word "clothing" or any of its derivatives leads to some interesting things that can't be "sleeved". Entries that do not include those 3 words are Fire-Resistant Boots (boots mentioned), Hat(turban), Hennin (silk), Ice Skates (boots), Jewelry (belts), Kilt (skirt), Mask (fabric), Patchwork Cloak, Pocketed Scarf, Poncho (fabric), Reinforced Scarf, Reversible Cloak (fabric/linen/silk), Skis, Soldier's Uniform ("typically includes sturdy boots, leather breeches or a kilt, a belt, a shirt, gloves, a cloak or jacket, and a hat" none of which is, apparently, "clothing"), Tabard (garment), and Wig.

I sure hope you'll ban those 16 "not clothes" items from being used if you GM since they aren't clothing but are on the Clothing table.

*Sigh* You do realize how illogical that is right? In the event that you do not I will explain where your RAW interpretation is fatally flawed. The mere fact that there are *two* descriptions that can make something clothing, does not mean that only one is applicable and there is no indication that this would be the case (a rule citation that only one description is valid would help your argument, but I am doubtful such a rule exists). The fact is that there is a. The clothing chart - everything described here is obviously clothing. and b. Any object that describes itself *as* clothing. Some objects may fit into two categories (like say Adventuring Gear), but that piece of adventuring gear may still be clothing provided it is described as such (Like say Swarmsuit). This really isn't hard I'm afraid. I'll break it down for you:

Step 1 is to determine is something is clothing either because it's described as clothing or if its on the clothing chart (which is itself a clothing description, but I felt I needed to spell that out since you may not have realized it).

Step 2 is to determine if that clothing whether described via a. or b. is non-magical.

If both Step 1 and Step 2 are true then a Sleeves of Many Garments can transform your clothes into it.

This is literally the only logical interpretation that keeps with the English language. If you would like to make a better argument I'd be more then willing to hear it, but thus far I have seen nothing even vaguely resembling a logical argument for Sleeves not being able to produce a Swarmsuit.

I don't believe it is rude to point out how logic works, even if it shows that the other sides argument is illogical. If someone is arguing that 2+2=3, it would not be rude to point that out that in fact 2+2=4. Everyone is entitled to their own interpretations, they just aren't entitled to their interpretations being valid.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
logic and the English language
Enlarge Person wrote:
This spell causes instant growth of a humanoid creature, doubling its height and multiplying its weight by 8...
Greater Barghest wrote:
An eerie green fire emerges from the obscenely large mouth of this strange humanoid combination of bat and wolf...
Gargoyle wrote:
This living stone statue takes the shape of a horned and winged humanoid, and green acid drips from its mouth...
Kolyaruts wrote:
Cloaked and stealthy humanoid warriors who track and punish those who break contracts.

Are any of the above creatures valid targets for Enlarge Person?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Redward: Nope, those are described as humanoids, but they do not possess the Humanoid type (note the difference between the lower case "h" and the uppercase "H").

However, if you read the sleeves of many garments, it says "clothing" with a lower case "c." Using the logic I think you were trying to hint at, it actually supports the notion that the magical item is using the general English language, and not game terminology.


Ravingdork wrote:

Redward: Nope, those are described as humanoids, but they do not possess the Humanoid type (note the difference between the lower case "h" and the uppercase "H").

However, if you read the sleeves of many garments, it says "clothing" with a lower case "c." Using the logic I think you were trying to hint at, it actually supports the notion that the magical item is using the general English language, and not game terminology.

Note that Enlarge Person contains no capital H 'Humanoid's in its description.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I was about to say "But the word 'Humanoid' in its target line does" but then I realized that, that wasn't true either.

Odd. Well, good luck with your argument. Looks like you might have some ground to stand on.


redward wrote:
Note that Enlarge Person contains no capital H 'Humanoid's in its description.

The real question, though, is whether or not that argument is worth it the potential counter arguments and time taken away from actually playing in a particular case. In the case of Enlarge Person, probably. In the case of allowing a swarmsuit, probably not. If a ruling that favors the swarmsuit wrecks a lot of encounters, the problem isn't the swarmsuit, it's the design of the encounters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Rudy2 wrote:

"These heavy and overlapping layers of clothing, coupled with a wide hat outfitted with a dense, veil-like netting around its brim"

Fine, Anzyr, if you want to play the semantics game, you can have the clothing, but not the veil-like netting, explicitly not part of the layers of clothing; the word that seems to be so important. No DR for you.

You're seriously splitting hairs. How are hats/veils not clothing?

Frankly the fact that this conversation has gone on as long as it has baffles me. It's a magic item that makes clothes. If the swarm suit and it's somehow non-clothing hat are a problem just make a multi-layered burrka (spelling?) that cinches around your boots and gloves. Same effect without the "hat issue."

Actually, it DOES sound reasonable to me that a DM would exclude the veiled hat from the abilities of the Sleeves of Many Garments to make. That would require the character to carry and/or wear the Swarm Hat, and put it on or have it on separately to enjoy the benefits of the SoMG to provide protection as a Move action.

But that is the sort of thing that needs to be adjudicated BEFORE the situation comes up, and that is why we need a resolution to this issue.

The hat is clothes as well. This is very simple. The swarmsuit (all of it) is clothing and is non-magical. Therefore, Sleeves of Many Garments can transform your clothes into it. It's a simple math equation of 2+2=4, where non-magical + clothing = sleevable. It's just basic math.

Also, splitting hairs like "You can make the suit, but not the hat. Hat sold separately." needlessly complicates the game. It makes more sense to just say, "Swarmsuits are clothing because the description of the item says so."

Shadow Lodge

I personally would say that the Swarmsuit can be used with the Sleeves of Many Garments, because it says it is clothing in the description. Not really semantics. Not any more than arguing clothing is only clothing if it is under the "Clothing" table, and so objects defined as clothing in any other table is not clothing at least.


Pink Dragon , Yesterday, 02:29 PM wrote

“If a swarmsuit is clothing, then why can't armor be considered clothing? ... "Armored coat", coats clearly being a form of clothing, not to mention "Chain shirt" where shirt is clearly another form of clothing…. Full plate… metal suit… clothing because it is a "suit"

Because not only is Armor listed under the Armor List and not the Clothing list, but also no suit of armor has its description state that it is clothing. The description of the Swarmsuit states that it is clothing. Show me where the specific description of an Armored Coat states that it is clothing, and then you have truly set up a sticky wicket.

Otherwise, “being able to obtain a suit of full plate from the Sleeves… under… RAW… is no more ridiculous than obtaining a swarmsuit.” is just strawmanning, and you should knock it off.

The Ascot of Many Suits, on the other hand, which can transform whatever you are wearing into any other suit, can indeed transform your current outfit into either a Swarmsuit or a suit of Full Plate Armor. Too bad it is not a Paizo Item instead of an item I just made up, like the Collar of Many Shirts.


FLite Yesterday, 09:11 PM wrote

“SoMG:
The wearer of these sleeves can, when she slips them on, choose to transform her current garments into any other nonmagical set of clothing.
Glamored Armor:
Upon command, a suit of glamered armor changes shape and appearance to assume the form of a normal set of clothing.”—FLite

Now you see, THAT is a sticky wicket. AND he brought in more evidence. I like evidence. I will examine it.

For starters, on a personal note, I’m a little disappointed by the description of the Glamored Enchantment. I had an idea that it might fit one of my character concepts really well if armor could be Glamored so that it appears that the wearer is naked.

I’ll point out that Glamored Armor only changes it’s appearance into 1 kind of clothing determined at the time it’s made, so we are only talking about those particular suits of armor that are Glamored to appear like Swarmsuits.

Personally, as a GM of my own campaign, I would allow it, but the movement, arcane spell failure rates, and skill check penalties would stack for both the armor and the Swarmsuit it’s mimicking.

I assert “changes shape and appearance” is not quite the same thing as “transform.” For instance, a suit of Full Plate Armor that is Glamored to look like a Plague Doctor Suit and Mask would still be made out of steel plates, the material optimized to ward off weapon strikes, not optimized to ward off the Plague, so that transformation really is cosmetic.

But what if we are talking about a suit of Padded Armor or Armored Coat Glamored to look like a Swarmsuit (or Plague Doctor outfit)? I think that should be legal: suits made out of cloth and leather changing shape and appearance to still be cloth and leather in a way that thickly and comprehensively covering the body to ward off swarms? I think that should be PFS legal. Granting a suit of armor DR vs Diminuitive and Tiny Swarms is reasonably priced at the cost of increased penalties and a +1 equivalent.

The problem I see with making it PFS legal has to do with Customizing Magic Items. In this case you are talking about using the Glamored enchantment to add a previously non-existent armor quality which may not be appropriate for all kinds of armor material and create a highly customized suit of magic armor. And that is a nono for reasons that I believe I understand but don’t agree with.

“Would you say that if I have Glamored Armor, I can turn it into a swarm suit? It says the armor retains its properties, but it doesn't say it can't gain additional ones,”

Pretty sneaky, sis.


So what do you think of this?

“Garments,” as in “transforms your current garments” is an English Language word and not a game term. Even if a Swarmsuit were not to qualify as clothing—IT DOES! I’M NOT SAYING IT DOESN’T, but if it didn’t—it would still be something you could call “garments.” That would mean you could use the Sleeves of Many Garments to transform your Swarmsuit into some other kind of nonmagical clothing, and then to use the Swarmsuit, you take the Sleeves off!


Pink Dragon wrote yesterday,

“After all, people wear armor like they wear clothing. Some adventurers never take their armor off.”

I have played with many an old-school DM who gets a wicked look in the eye and asks the Cavalier-Paladin, “So, are you sleeping with your Full Plate armor on or off?”

I have long made it a point to wear armor that can be slept in while on patrol, and keep an Armored Coat handy, just in case. Also, I'll have a Wand of Swift Girding, and beg a fellow party member to use it on me when the need arises.

I have been very annoyed by PFS adventures that do not consider penalizing players for sleeping in their armor and waking up fresh the next day or allowing them to sleep blissfully naked with no chance of a Hill Giant wandering up to your campfire in the middle of the night, and no provision for heavily armored characters requiring servants to help them put their armor on properly. I often feel like I’m being penalized for paying attention to the rules.


@ RyanH, 7/25

Honestly, I think the Sleeves of Many Garments is a lovely item well-worth the 200gp even if you can’t play the Swarmsuit Trick.

And really, it is just a neat trick, not a devastating tactic nor something I’d ever see making an integral part of my character build.

It’s nothing like getting the Scent ability, the Blind Fighting Feat, and an Eversmoking Bottle. That negates a good deal more than half the obstacles. Sadly, it also negates a good deal more than half the allies, too.


Dimminsy , 07:24 AM , wrote “What's I'm getting at is, while the description of the Swarmsuit refers to itself as clothing, and the Sleeves of Many Garments say they can turn into any clothing, the only things we know for sure that are classified as clothing are in the Clothing table.”

We know other things for sure too. We also know for sure that the Sleeves of Many Garments are clothing according to the description.

We know for sure that that description is in an official rulebook and normally we would say that it is every bit as binding as any other rule, except that it is nested in the specific definition of the item.

We know, perhaps less surely, but pretty darn surely, that specific trumps general in this game, and the description of Swarmsuit is more specific than which lists it is on.

In the post of mine you are quoting, the point that I was making is that things don’t always have to be on the list to qualify as that kind of thing, which is a point your post suggests you agree with.

The rest we know for sure.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Scott, if you hit the REPLY button next to someone's post, you can quote them in your post.


Anzyr wrote:
The hat is clothes as well. This is very simple. The swarmsuit (all of it) is clothing and is non-magical. Therefore, Sleeves of Many Garments can transform your clothes into it. It's a simple math equation of 2+2=4, where non-magical + clothing = sleevable. It's just basic math.

It's also very simple and clear that it's an illusion effect, so you still only get the image of a hat.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Except it's not an illusion effect. It actually physically changes. The rules text makes that VERY clear.

The item creation lines don't apply in this case, for reasons other posters have already laid clear (namely that they are often contradictory, unrelated, or else-wise just don't make sense).


Ravingdork wrote:
Except it's not an illusion effect. It actually physically changes. The rules text makes that VERY clear.

This was disproved on the first page of this thread. It's not as clear as you pretend. I see the further hundred some odd posts as just trying to "win" by outlasting the dissenting voices.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I weep for humanity.


Anzyr, up until your response to my post you only argued based on the semantics of the word "clothing", never mentioning the clothing table ( or at least to any appreciable degree that I remember, if so correct me) as a basis for what the sleeves can transform into. Do not deride someone for arguing against you when you change your argument after they posted. It's simple, which you're apparently very good at pointing out. =) The whole point of my post was to point out how illogical it is to only use the word "clothing" or "things that call themselves clothing" as a basis for what the sleeves can transform into (along with the non-magical part).

Padded type armor's description:

Padded wrote:
More than simple clothing, padded armor combines heavy, quilted cloth and layers of densely packed stuffing to create ca cheap and basic protection.

Is it "advanced clothing" rather than simple clothing? Could the sleeves turn into the above armor?

Scott, while I wish to hold your opinion, I think that opinion breaks too many other parts of the game. Redward above already explained why, but I'll go ahead and quote him.

redward wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
logic and the English language
Enlarge Person wrote:
This spell causes instant growth of a humanoid creature, doubling its height and multiplying its weight by 8...
Greater Barghest wrote:
An eerie green fire emerges from the obscenely large mouth of this strange humanoid combination of bat and wolf...
Gargoyle wrote:
This living stone statue takes the shape of a horned and winged humanoid, and green acid drips from its mouth...
Kolyaruts wrote:
Cloaked and stealthy humanoid warriors who track and punish those who break contracts.
Are any of the above creatures valid targets for Enlarge Person?

Are any of the above creatures clothing? *snark* =P

I find it very interesting that no one that says the swarmsuit should be allowed by the sleeves has taken on the "light weapon" or "humanoid" arguments.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Inviktus wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Except it's not an illusion effect. It actually physically changes. The rules text makes that VERY clear.

This was disproved on the first page of this thread. It's not as clear as you pretend. I see the further hundred some odd posts as just trying to "win" by outlasting the dissenting voices.

Must have missed it. Would you be so kind as to link or quote it?

(Also, if it was disproved on the first page, why is there more than one page to this thread?)


Dimminsy wrote:

Anzyr, up until your response to my post you only argued based on the semantics of the word "clothing", never mentioning the clothing table ( or at least to any appreciable degree that I remember, if so correct me) as a basis for what the sleeves can transform into. Do not deride someone for arguing against you when you change your argument after they posted. It's simple, which you're apparently very good at pointing out. =) The whole point of my post was to point out how illogical it is to only use the word "clothing" or "things that call themselves clothing" as a basis for what the sleeves can transform into (along with the non-magical part).

Padded type armor's description:

Padded wrote:
More than simple clothing, padded armor combines heavy, quilted cloth and layers of densely packed stuffing to create ca cheap and basic protection.

Is it "advanced clothing" rather than simple clothing? Could the sleeves turn into the above armor?

Scott, while I wish to hold your opinion, I think that opinion breaks too many other parts of the game. Redward above already explained why, but I'll go ahead and quote him.

redward wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
logic and the English language
Enlarge Person wrote:
This spell causes instant growth of a humanoid creature, doubling its height and multiplying its weight by 8...
Greater Barghest wrote:
An eerie green fire emerges from the obscenely large mouth of this strange humanoid combination of bat and wolf...
Gargoyle wrote:
This living stone statue takes the shape of a horned and winged humanoid, and green acid drips from its mouth...
Kolyaruts wrote:
Cloaked and stealthy humanoid warriors who track and punish those who break contracts.
Are any of the above creatures valid targets for Enlarge Person?

Are any of the above creatures clothing? *snark* =P

I find it very interesting...

Noble effort, but the description of Padded Armor doesn't say it is clothing. It says "more than simple clothing," and that is not the same thing.


Ravingdork wrote:
Inviktus wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Except it's not an illusion effect. It actually physically changes. The rules text makes that VERY clear.

This was disproved on the first page of this thread. It's not as clear as you pretend. I see the further hundred some odd posts as just trying to "win" by outlasting the dissenting voices.

Must have missed it. Would you be so kind as to link or quote it?

(Also, if it was disproved on the first page, why is there more than one page to this thread?)

Yes, Inviktus, you have lasted since page 1. The point WAS proven on page 1. It was proven that the Sleeves transform 1 kind of clothing into any other, and it was proven that a Swarmsuit is clothing. It has been proven that the clothes undergo an actual transformation and not just an illusionary one.

You have lasted right along with us arguing against what you have seen proven. You may not be any more correct than the rest of us, but you are also no better.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What this thread taught me is that I made the right call by not using swarms and swarm rules in my game.


Scythia wrote:
What this thread taught me is that I made the right call by not using swarms and swarm rules in my game.

Amen.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Noble effort, but the description of Padded Armor doesn't say it is clothing. It says "more than simple clothing," and that is not the same thing.

So being "more than simple clothing" means what? That it's not clothing at all? That it's special clothing? That it transcends clothing? So clothing is fine, special clothing is fine, but being more than special clothing means it's not clothing at all. I'd say Fire-Resistant Boots are "more than simple" boots, I'd say Ice Skates are "more than simple" boots, and a Soldier's Uniform is "more than simple clothing."

Again, I find it funny that my WHOLE post is quoted and only one part of it is replied to. If the logic being applied here (if it says it's clothing it's clothing) is correct, then why does redward's suggestion not work? Does Enlarge Person not work on Greater Berghests, Gargoyles, and Kolyaruts (if it says it's humanoid it's humanoid)?

Logic should be consistent.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Yes, Inviktus, you have lasted since page 1. The point WAS proven on page 1. It was proven that the Sleeves transform 1 kind of clothing into any other, and it was proven that a Swarmsuit is clothing. It has been proven that the clothes undergo an actual transformation and not just an illusionary one.

You have lasted right along with us arguing against what you have seen proven. You may not be any more correct than the rest of us, but you are also no better.

For an example of a thread that went on WAY too long after it had already been proven... Sohei 1 Weapon Master 3


Id rule the swarm set is a set a of gear and not a set of clothing due to where its located at. Makes it simple to define instead of parseing words on if multiple layers of cloth with a hat thats connected with a huge net that goes around the body is considered a set of clothes...
u parse words then like the poster above stated with "key words" u get into crazy scenarios of rules being misterpreted with enlarge spell and humanoids.

Liberty's Edge

Ravingdork wrote:
Inviktus wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Except it's not an illusion effect. It actually physically changes. The rules text makes that VERY clear.

This was disproved on the first page of this thread. It's not as clear as you pretend. I see the further hundred some odd posts as just trying to "win" by outlasting the dissenting voices.

Must have missed it. Would you be so kind as to link or quote it?

(Also, if it was disproved on the first page, why is there more than one page to this thread?)

It has been disproved as "very clear", not as "this is the absolute truth" for an opinion or the other. I think it is only a illusory effect, so all the other questions are moot but the item description, the spell used in crafting it and the magic school of its aura clash and there is a basis for both opinions.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Redneckdevil wrote:

Id rule the swarm set is a set a of gear and not a set of clothing due to where its located at.

u parse words then like the poster above stated with "key words" u get into crazy scenarios of rules being misterpreted with enlarge spell and humanoids.

If it isn't on page 88 to 91 of UE and resembles a garment, I wouldn't allow the sleeves to change the appearance.

Diego Rossi wrote:
I think it is only a illusory effect, so all the other questions are moot but the item description, the spell used in crafting it and the magic school of its aura clash and there is a basis for both opinions.

I also firmly believe it is an illusion.

Obviously there are two sides to this. Some believe anything that mentions clothing even if not in the clothing section works and some believe it isn't an illusion.

There isn't anything we can use to prove who is right, there is enough ambiguity in the rules text to go either way. If we do choose some of the liberal interpretations then non-humanoid creatures that have the shape of humanoid should be able to Enlarge Person. I don't believe anyone in here thinks that is true.


James Risner wrote:
If it isn't on page 88 to 91 of UE and resembles a garment, I wouldn't allow the sleeves to change the appearance.

So Dilettante's Outfit's aren't clothes? They aren't on page 88 to 91 of UE...


Dimminsy wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Noble effort, but the description of Padded Armor doesn't say it is clothing. It says "more than simple clothing," and that is not the same thing.

So being "more than simple clothing" means what? That it's not clothing at all? That it's special clothing? That it transcends clothing? So clothing is fine, special clothing is fine, but being more than special clothing means it's not clothing at all. I'd say Fire-Resistant Boots are "more than simple" boots, I'd say Ice Skates are "more than simple" boots, and a Soldier's Uniform is "more than simple clothing."

Again, I find it funny that my WHOLE post is quoted and only one part of it is replied to. If the logic being applied here (if it says it's clothing it's clothing) is correct, then why does redward's suggestion not work? Does Enlarge Person not work on Greater Berghests, Gargoyles, and Kolyaruts (if it says it's humanoid it's humanoid)?

Logic should be consistent.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Yes, Inviktus, you have lasted since page 1. The point WAS proven on page 1. It was proven that the Sleeves transform 1 kind of clothing into any other, and it was proven that a Swarmsuit is clothing. It has been proven that the clothes undergo an actual transformation and not just an illusionary one.

You have lasted right along with us arguing against what you have seen proven. You may not be any more correct than the rest of us, but you are also no better.

For an example of a thread that went on WAY too long after it had already been proven... Sohei 1 Weapon Master 3

Yes, being "more than simple clothing" might mean it's not clothing at all, and any PFS DM might well rule against it based purely on RAW. I am holding my nose as I write, but since the description does not say that Padded Armor doesn't directly state that is clothing, and it is not under the clothing list. Personally, I'd let you have it. But not as a PFS DM.

I don't know enough about the Bestiary to examine your evidence about Humanoids vs. Monstrous Humanoids properly. That is the main reason why didn't address it. As it happens, most of my Pathfinder characters have been melee characters, and I haven't had occasion to do things like cast Summon Monster spells, and I've been avoiding reading up on monsters to sort of keep myself from metagaming in encounters, so I don't say things like, "No, cast an Illusionary Lightning Bolt, his Will Save is lower than his Reflex Save." or something like that.

So, I was mostly quoting the part of your post that I felt qualified to post on, and didn't feel like doing further research or editing out the quote.

I found it interesting that no one addressed my argument that specific trumps general.

Sczarni

graystone wrote:
James Risner wrote:
If it isn't on page 88 to 91 of UE and resembles a garment, I wouldn't allow the sleeves to change the appearance.
So Dilettante's Outfit's aren't clothes? They aren't on page 88 to 91 of UE...

I meant to address this last time you brought it up, and didn't. My apologies.

I'm sure there are other examples of items outside of UE that could be considered "clothing", but that weren't listed in a "clothing" section like UE utilizes. The Dilettante's Outfit is a good example. Obviously, for one item, in a different book, it's easier to consider that, in order to conserve page space, the authors thought it was simpler to make a "Gnome Equipment" section rather than an "Equipment" section for 4 items and a "Clothing" section for 1.

I don't think the existence of the Dilettante's Outfit helps the argument for the Swarmsuit. The authors of UE had the opportunity to include the Swarmsuit in the Clothing section, and didn't, whereas the authors of the ARG never had a Clothing section to begin with.

So where does that leave us?

I'd allow the Sleeves to transform into a Dilettante's Outfit. I could stick with the hardliner attitude of "nope, it's not listed as clothing", but in this case I think it's rather obvious. Yes, I'm sure someone will feel that me taking this position will invalidate my stance on the Swarmsuit not being clothing, but I still feel that its exclusion from the Clothing list is telling.

EDIT: I lost track of when to use a capital "C" for "C/clothing", so I just distributed them about all willy nilly. Pay them no heed.


A few things lead me to say yes.

1) The description sounds like a physical change.

2)Even IF the clothes are illusionary, it might work against the insects anyway. If the insects think they can't get through, then they can't, like an adventurer stopped by an illusionary wall.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

^^ Except insects (vermin) are immune to illusions (mind effects). Otherwise good argument. Also, the amount of Nerd Rage has made me smile.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Not all illusions are mind-affecting effects.

151 to 200 of 443 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can Sleeves of Many Garments Produce a Swarm Suit? All Messageboards