I understand what you're saying Nefreet. I was asking James Risner if HE would say no to that set of clothing.
My look at it is that they had items that fell into more than one group in the UE. The authors also could have put ice skates or ski's in adventuring tools as I would. Just because it ended up where it did doesn't mean it's ONLY that. [IMO]
Look at something like the compass or crowbar. they could easily be in the tools. Balancing pole and parasols fit adventuring gear as well as tools. It seems clear to me that items don't always cleanly fall into one chart.
I'd allow a swarmsuit with the sleeves for the same reason I'd allow a
traveler's any-tool to turn into a crowbar.
Only phantasms are mind affecting. Everything else works just fine on them
|
So among the other picky, pedantic reasons I would not allow the sleeves to become a Swarmsuit, is that my read of the description is that a swarmsuit is lots of outfits put together rather than just one.
Or in other words, "layers of clothing" <> "clothing"
These heavy and overlapping layers of clothing, coupled with a wide hat outfitted with a dense, veil-like netting around its brim...
On the other hand, I have no problem allowing the hat.
I had hoped... (in vain naturally) that someone would point out why Enlarge Person doesn't work on creatures described as humanoid. Simply put merely being described as humanoid does make one a humanoid creature any more then being described as cloth makes something clothing. None of the creatures descriptions you will note describes them as "humanoid creatures", only as humanoids. A humanoid creature is different from a "humanoid" in the same vein that merely being a "weapon" doesn't make something a "melee weapon". It is true that all humanoid creatures are humanoid, but it is not true all humanoids are humanoid creatures, in the same way that all melee weapons are weapons, but not all weapons are melee weapons. So why does clothing with Sleeves work then you are wondering? Simple; because it just says clothing. It doesn't say it changes your garments into something off the clothing chart. Just clothing that is non-magical. So in this case any clothing (that is non-magical) will suffice.
As to the people who think its an illusion, I'm sorry your interpretation has literally 0 rules to stand on. "I think it's an illusion because an illusion spell was used to make the item" is not rules. The rules are that it transforms.
@ pH unbalanced - A layer of clothing is still clothing. It can produce outfits that are themselves made of layers of clothing. Your interpretation is lacking in support.
|
|
I had hoped... (in vain naturally) that someone would point out why Enlarge Person doesn't work on creatures described as humanoid. Simply put merely being described as humanoid does make one a humanoid creature any more then being described as cloth makes something clothing. None of the creatures descriptions you will note describes them as "humanoid creatures", only as humanoids. A humanoid creature is different from a "humanoid" in the same vein that merely being a "weapon" doesn't make something a "melee weapon". It is true that all humanoid creatures are humanoid, but it is not true all humanoids are humanoid creatures, in the same way that all melee weapons are weapons, but not all weapons are melee weapons. So why does clothing with Sleeves work then you are wondering? Simple; because it just says clothing. It doesn't say it changes your garments into something off the clothing chart. Just clothing that is non-magical. So in this case any clothing (that is non-magical) will suffice.
As to the people who think its an illusion, I'm sorry your interpretation has literally 0 rules to stand on. "I think it's an illusion because an illusion spell was used to make the item" is not rules. The rules are that it transforms.
@ pH unbalanced - A layer of clothing is still clothing. It can produce outfits that are themselves made of layers of clothing. Your interpretation is lacking in support.
I agree with the Humanoid argument, as well as the fact that this+Swarmsuit works, but I disagree as to the illusion bit. The rules don't define Transforming things, and as was shown on the first page, Transform can mean a physical change, or it can be a change in only appearance. So there is a rule for it to stand on. It can be either one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Simply put merely being described as humanoid does make one a humanoid creature any more then being described as cloth makes something clothing.
So if the Swarmsuit description instead read: "These heavy and overlapping layers of cloth, coupled with a wide hat outfitted with a dense, veil-like netting around its brim" it would not be an eligible for the Sleeves of Many Garments?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ pH unbalanced - A layer of clothing is still clothing. It can produce outfits that are themselves made of layers of clothing. Your interpretation is lacking in support.
Perhaps. English words are imprecise -- that's why I prefer to use defined game terms. As it happens, I feel my interpretation is both clear and obvious. To me, the description of Swarmsuit reads much more like a description of armor than of an "outfit" and so at my table I would rule it is not an outfit.
You are certainly welcome to your own interpretation, and at your table I would not argue against it.
Simply put merely being described as humanoid does make one a humanoid creature any more then being described as cloth makes something clothing.So if the Swarmsuit description instead read: "These heavy and overlapping layers of cloth, coupled with a wide hat outfitted with a dense, veil-like netting around its brim" it would not be an eligible for the Sleeves of Many Garments?
Correct. Same reason Padded Armor or Silken Ceremonial armor don't count more or less. If Swarmsuit didn't say it was clothing, since it isn't under a heading called "clothing", RAW is that would not qualify.
Correct. Same reason Padded Armor or Silken Ceremonial armor don't count more or less. If Swarmsuit didn't say it was clothing, since it isn't under a heading called "clothing", RAW is that would not qualify.Simply put merely being described as humanoid does make one a humanoid creature any more then being described as cloth makes something clothing.So if the Swarmsuit description instead read: "These heavy and overlapping layers of cloth, coupled with a wide hat outfitted with a dense, veil-like netting around its brim" it would not be an eligible for the Sleeves of Many Garments?
Okay. So you believe that valid items for the Sleeves of Many Garments include any item under the Clothing section of a source (such as the CRB or UE) as well as any other item that specifically uses the keyword 'clothing' (but not clothes, cloth, outfit or other similar words)? And if so, you believe this to be 100% unambiguous and not open to interpretation?
Clothes would work as it is a form of clothing (mostly because the definition of clothing includes clothes). Cloth, no. Outfit, RAW: No, unless it describes itself as clothes or clothing or appeared under a heading entitled clothing. And yes I believe the RAW to be 100% unambiguous because it really is. RAW is rarely ambiguous to be honest. There are some case where the RAW is genuinely unclear, but more often it is RAI that is ambiguous. The problem I believe is that people confuse RAI for RAW and then invent ambiguities out of their confusion. Take the outfits. This is a weird interaction since, RAI its probably ambiguous if the writer intended to count them or not. RAW it's pretty clear they don't though without additional qualifiers.
|
Anzyr, the problem is that you are assuming that a.) english words and sentences are unambiguous and b.) your interpretation is the only legitimate interpretation anyone can come to.
since neither a nor b are true, RAW is often ambiguous.
(Example of the top of my head. Improved familiar refers to "arcane class caster level." does that mean your level in an arcane caster class? or does it mean your caster level in a spell granted by an arcane class. If it is the second, SLAs qualify you for improved familiars. If it is the second, they do not. Different people rule differently.)
That is a genuinely ambiguous RAW issue, however this is not. There is no way to reach a grammatically correct interpretation that Swarmsuit is not clothing. And there is no grammatically correct interpretation that would make Swarmsuit magical. And there is no grammatically correct interpretation that the transformation is purely illusory. Therefore because all of the above statements are true, a Sleeves of Many Garments can produce a real Swarmsuit. No matter how much people may not like it, 2+2 will equal 4.
Simple true/false statements make this super easy RAW:
Swarmsuit is clothing: True. (It says so itself.)
Swarmsuit is non-magical: True.
Sleeves can transform garments into clothing: True.
Therefore, Sleeves can produce a Swarmsuit. Logic is logical.
And, again, just as we would not argue against you at your table, I would hope you would pay others the same courtesy when visiting theirs.
EDIT: except, and I just realized this, you don't play PFS, so I suppose that's a moot point.
And if someone at your table told you how the rules for Swarmsuit work (like I've been explaining) and you refused to let them produce a Swarmsuit with Sleeves, I hope they would deal with such a breach through appropriate channels. If you don't like the RAW, then perhaps organized play is not for you.
Edit: Of course I trust that you'd follow the RAW and let them produce a swarmsuit, so this issue is moot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Swarmsuit is clothing: True. (It says so itself.)
You may find some who argue that "heavy and overlapping layers of clothing, coupled with a wide hat outfitted with a dense, veil-like netting around its brim" is not the same as clothing. Or rather, that clothing is a necessary but insufficient condition for the creation of a swarmsuit.
Why? Because of the 'coupled with...' clause. The swarmsuit involves additional equipment beyond mere layers of clothing. Namely, a hat (certainly also clothing) and dense, veil-like netting (arguably not).
So a GM would be well within her rights to grant you heavy, overlapping layers of clothing, a hat, and a veil, but no netting, granting you none of the benefits of an actual swarmsuit.
Basically, for your argument to be sound, you need 'dense, veil-like netting' to be considered clothing. You may believe it is. I am not convinced.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no way to reach a grammatically correct interpretation that Swarmsuit is not clothing. And there is no grammatically correct interpretation that would make Swarmsuit magical. And there is no grammatically correct interpretation that the transformation is purely illusory.
The issue isn't syntax (grammar), it's semantics. Or even more specifically, conceptual categorization.
Conceptual categories tend to be very fuzzy around the edges, and subject to individual variation. That's why the moment you move to natural language definitions, you have accepted the fact of table variation.
I am very clear on my personal definition of clothing. You seem very clear on yours. They do not agree. That does not make one of us wrong.
That's why the simplest, least ambiguous answer is to go with the clothing table -- whether or not something appears there is an objective fact, unlike whether or not a Swarmsuit meets one's personal definition of clothing.
So if literally says "I am X", that's not enough for you to classify it as X? Because that isn't an issue with conceptual categories. That's an issue with preconceived biases. The real simplest answer that best withstands Occam's Razor is that things that say they are clothing... are clothing (as this makes 0 assumptions).
@ redward; "coupled with" means the hat is included with the layers of clothing. Therefore it is all clothing. A GM would not be within RAW to disallow a Swarmsuit. (Or RAI either; though this second part is only opinion.)
|
|
So if literally says "I am X", that's not enough for you to classify it as X? Because that isn't an issue with conceptual categories. That's an issue with preconceived biases. The real simplest answer that best withstands Occam's Razor is that things that say they are clothing... are clothing (as this makes 0 assumptions).
These heavy and overlapping layers of clothing, coupled with a wide hat outfitted with a dense, veil-like netting around its brim...
It does not say that it is clothing. It says that it is layers of clothing. My interpretation is that it is made of multiple outfits' worth of clothing, putting it beyond the capability of these Sleeves. (The dense, veil-like netting also causes me pause, but I could be talked around that.)
And what you call bias, I call judgement. <Shrug>
|
|
Yes. I would use the appropriate channels.
From the Guide to Organised Play:
We understand that sometimes a Game Master
has to make rules adjudications on the fly, deal with
unexpected player choices, or even cope with extremely
unlucky (or lucky) dice on both sides of the screen.
As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and
responsibility to make whatever judgements, within the
rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure
everyone has a fair and fun experience.
Oh. Look at that. I am the appropriate channel. That makes it easy.
(I hope that is unambiguous enough for you?)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Many dresses are also "layers of clothing." That doesn't mean it's not clothing.
@ pH unbalanced - Layers of Clothing is still clothing in the same way that layers of ice cream is still ice cream.
@ FLite - You missed a key phrase. Here let me point out for you:
As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and
responsibility to make whatever judgements, within the
rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure
everyone has a fair and fun experience.
Ruling that Sleeves cannot produce a Swarmsuit is not "within the rules". Again, if you do not like this feel free to modify for your home game (make sure to tell your players first), but in PFS the rules be the rules.
They are not reasonable. It is not reasonable to assume that clothing does not mean clothing. There is really only one RAW way. If it was genuinely ambiguous as with Improved Familiar I would be the first to agree, but simply put no such ambiguity exists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ruling that Sleeves cannot produce a Swarmsuit is not "within the rules". Again, if you do not like this feel free to modify for your home game (make sure to tell your players first), but in PFS the rules be the rules.
Anzyr, myself and others have presented several different interpretations of the mechanics of the Sleeves of Many Garments, as well as detailed reasoning for why they are viable.
These include, but are not limited to:
The effect is an illusion.
1. Disguise Self, an Illusion spell, is used to create the item.
2. The item description says the user can "choose to transform her current garments into any other non-magical set of clothing". The word 'transform' has no in-game mechanical definition. The English word 'transform' can mean "make a thorough or dramatic change in the form, appearance, or character of."
The Swarmsuit is not non-magical clothing.
1. From a strict rules interpretation, the swarmsuit does not appear on the Clothing table in any Paizo source.
2. The item description says "heavy and overlapping layers of clothing, coupled with a wide hat outfitted with a dense, veil-like netting around its brim." While it includes clothing, the swarmsuit also requires an additional, non-clothing item to function: "a dense, veil-like netting."
The Swarmsuit is not non-magical clothing.
1. From a strict rules interpretation, the swarmsuit does not appear on the Clothing table in any Paizo source.
2. The item description says "heavy and overlapping layers of clothing, coupled with a wide hat outfitted with a dense, veil-like netting around its brim." While it includes clothing, the swarmsuit also requires an additional, non-clothing item to function: "a dense, veil-like netting."
The rules are not written precisely enough to assume that any word not strictly defined has a specific mechanical meaning, requiring GM interpretation.
1. "humanoid" is used both as an in-game mechanical definition (a specific sub-type) and a
as a non-mechanical descriptor (without capitalization or any other indicator to distinguish the two).
Any one of those is reason enough for a GM to rule that the swarmsuit is not a valid choice. Together, they show that this question is anything but unambiguous. You're creating mechanical game definitions where none exist: 'transform ' is not a game term. Neither is 'clothing', or, if it is, it would necessarily be defined as 'items on the Clothing table,' as that is the only rules source available to use as a definition. Without a specific rules definition or developer clarification, those terms are left to GM interpretation.
Since you seem unwilling to even entertain the idea of an opposing viewpoint, I see no reason to continue this conversation.
You can have detailed reasoning, but none of it valid. Lets go through:
1. Disguise Self being used to make it irrelevant, bringing this up weakens your argument.
2. The Sleeves contain no langauge that the Transform is not physical (and indeed indicates that the *new clothes* not *new appearance* perfectly fits the wearer. The only logical conclusion is that the clothes actually become the new clothes. Any other reading would require more assumptions.
1. The fact that is does not appear on the Clothing table is irrelevant, because sleeves says nothing about the clothing table. This also weakens your argument.
2. It literally says it is "clothing" and that clothing is "coupled with" the hat. Coupled with means that the hat is part of the clothing. Your interpretation can only be achieved by ignoring words and context.
1. I already explained this above. You are wrong. A humanoid creature is different from a creature that could be described as humanoid, in the way a weapon could be described as simple without being a simple weapon.
I am entertaining the opposing viewpoint. It simply is not valid.
I think most people agree the transformation is physical and that sleeves can produce a swarmsuit. You should be reasonably safe. The mere fact that there are a few voices who profess that something is unclear does not make it so (ie. Global Warming).
I consider myself quite civil, where civil means "only attacks the argument not the person". I may disagree and use sarcasm at times, but I at least do not consider that to be uncivil.
|
If the DM says you can't turn your "current garments" into a Swarmsuit, you can still transform your Swarmsuit into any nonmagical suit of clothing, because even if the Swarmsuit is not Clothing, or even clothing, it is still a set of garments.
Then when the Swarm comes, I remove the sleeves.
Told you I'm wiggly.
If you tried that at my table, since I'm of the belief that a Swarmsuit goes on over your clothing (as it does, IRL), then I'd rule that the clothes underneath your Swarmsuit would change, but not the Swarmsuit itself.
(I'm not new at dealing with wiggly players)
No, there is recognizing an opinion, realizing it is wrong and saying so. It doesn't matter how many people say global warming isn't real, you will still only be correct to claim the position that is as true. My situation here is analogous. You are entitled to your interpretations, truly you are. As are people who do not believe in global warming. What you are not entitled to is for your interpretation to be valid. And I'm sorry but your argument hinges on adding rules that don't exist (disguise self somehow making it an illusion), and pretending that clothing is not clothing. It's not valid.
If the DM says you can't turn your "current garments" into a Swarmsuit, you can still transform your Swarmsuit into any nonmagical suit of clothing, because even if the Swarmsuit is not Clothing, or even clothing, it is still a set of garments.
Then when the Swarm comes, I remove the sleeves.
Told you I'm wiggly.If you tried that at my table, since I'm of the belief that a Swarmsuit goes on over your clothing (as it does, IRL), then I'd rule that the clothes underneath your Swarmsuit would change, but not the Swarmsuit itself.
(I'm not new at dealing with wiggly players)
So if someone could wear a nothing but a Swarmsuit, you would concede your position? Because I'm sure someone has.
You can have detailed reasoning, but none of it valid.
Okay, let's do this.
1. Disguise Self being used to make it irrelevant, bringing this up weakens your argument.
It is relevant because I can find no magic item that is created with Illusion spells only that performs actual transmutation. The Sleeves of Many Garments would be the first.
2. The Sleeves contain no langauge that the Transform is not physical (and indeed indicates that the *new clothes* not *new appearance* perfectly fits the wearer. The only logical conclusion is that the clothes actually become the new clothes. Any other reading would require more assumptions.
The Sleeves contain no language that the transformation is physical. I agree that "new clothes" implies a physical transformation. But it only implies. They also say they "are always clean and mended unless she specifically designates otherwise." Does this mean that if the wearer is doused in mud, her clothes remain clean? It says 'always'. The only way I know to physically achieve that effect is via Prestidigitation, and lo and behold, that's what the Comfort Armor Special Ability uses ("a suit of armor with this enhancement always looks immaculately clean..."). The simplest, Occam's Razor-iest explanation for "always clean and mended" is that it's an illusion.
1. The fact that is does not appear on the Clothing table is irrelevant, because sleeves says nothing about the clothing table. This also weakens your argument.
Again, there is no game term for 'Clothing' apart from its use as the heading of a table. The simplest, most logical assumption is to look at that table and pick an item. Otherwise, you have to make up your own definition. Here's yours:
Clothes would work as it is a form of clothing (mostly because the definition of clothing includes clothes). Cloth, no. Outfit, RAW: No, unless it describes itself as clothes or clothing or appeared under a heading entitled clothing.
So now the Clothing table is relevant?
2. It literally says it is "clothing" and that clothing is "coupled with" the hat. Coupled with means that the hat is part of the clothing. Your interpretation can only be achieved by ignoring words and context.
That is not what "coupled with" means. It means "accompany with, mix with, incorporate with, link with, associate with, connect with/to, ally with." The items are separate and therefore need to be combined. Or coupled. Your definition would require something like "these heavy and overlapping layers of clothing, include a wide hat outfitted with a dense, veil-like netting." But it doesn't say that. It says 'coupled.' And you claim there is no room for ambiguity in the language, so it means what it says: separate items coupled together to form one.
1. I already explained this above. You are wrong. A humanoid creature is different from a creature that could be described as humanoid, in the way a weapon could be described as simple without being a simple weapon.
Here's how you explained that above:
Simply put merely being described as humanoid does make one a humanoid creature any more then being described as cloth makes something clothing
(emphasis mine)
You cheated. You changed the words. It's not 'humanoid' vs. 'humanoid creature' and 'cloth' vs. 'clothing'. It's 'humanoid' vs. 'humanoid' and 'clothing' vs. 'clothing'.But just to close the door on that:
Here's the description of the Doppelganger: "This grayish humanoid creature seems almost unfinished, with a narrow head, gaunt limbs, and a sinister, noseless face."
The Doppelganger is a monstrous humanoid.
Any one of those is reason enough for a GM to rule that the swarmsuit is not a valid choice. Together, they show that this question is anything but unambiguous. You're creating mechanical game definitions where none exist: 'transform ' is not a game term. Neither is 'clothing', or, if it is, it would necessarily be defined as 'items on the Clothing table,' as that is the only rules source available to use as a definition. Without a specific rules definition or developer clarification, those terms are left to GM interpretation.
Since you seem unwilling to even entertain the idea of an opposing viewpoint, I see no reason to continue this conversation.
Well said Redward. Unfortunately, I'm afraid we are now having the illusion of a discussion on this topic.
It is relevant because I can find no magic item that is created with Illusion spells only that performs actual transmutation. The Sleeves of Many Garments would be the first.
There is no game rule that things created using illusion spells must create illusions. This is invalid because it using rules that don't exist. Bringing it up is nonsense, since it is not a rule, just your opinion.
The Sleeves contain no language that the transformation is physical.
It says it transforms your clothes into new clothes. It says nothing about merely being the appearance. Therefore it is not.
Again, there is no game term for 'Clothing' apart from its use as the heading of a table.
Untrue. The clothing table is not a game term. It is merely a table that holds objects that are clothing. There is no rule that indicates it is the only source of clothing.
So now the Clothing table is relevant?
It is only relevant to the extent that things it contains are clothing. Nothing more, nothing less. As above there is no indication it the only source of, or the only place to look for clothing. It merely indicates that the list contains clothing. I'm not sure why you brought this up. It brings your comprehension of my argument into question.
That is not what "coupled with" means. It means "accompany with, mix with, incorporate with, link with, associate with, connect with/to, ally with."
If you don't believe that any of that means "is part of" say through, mixing with, incorporation with, connection to... I see why you are struggling to reach the only correct RAW interpretation.
You cheated. You changed the words. It's not 'humanoid' vs. 'humanoid creature' and 'cloth' vs. 'clothing'. It's 'humanoid' vs. 'humanoid' and 'clothing' vs. 'clothing'.But just to close the door on that:
Here's the description of the Doppelganger: "This grayish humanoid creature seems almost unfinished, with a narrow head, gaunt limbs, and a sinister, noseless face."
The Doppelganger is a monstrous humanoid.
I absolutely did not cheat. The additional word at the end absolutely matters. Saying humanoid is to humanoid creature as clothing is to clothing is patently false. As to doppelgangers, you have found an interesting circumstance where they may in fact also be humanoid creatures RAW. RAI it is obvious that the writer did not intend this to be the case, but this actually doesn't help your argument.
I still don't see anything remotely valid here.
|
|
Couple of things:
1:This probably isn't RAI. Not because the author of the sleeves or swarmsuit didn't want them to work together, but merely because for it to be RAI they would have had to written the rule with the sleeves and swarmsuit in mind, so that they would have intended it to work.
2:The fact that an Illusion is what is used to make this may be less relevant than some think. Why? Because IIRC, illusions allow saving throws when you interact with them. So, if you were just to bump into someone wearing the sleeves and it were an illusion effect, would be allowed a saving throw to disbelieve your illusion. The text is not however used anywhere in the item, so there is no such save, thus implying that the effect is not an illusion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't believe that any of that means "is part of" say through, mixing with, incorporation with, connection to... I see why you are struggling to reach the only correct RAW interpretation.
If I couple with a lady, am I man, a lady, or something else? I am still a man. We are a couple. If you couple clothing with a hat and veil-like netting, the netting does not transform to clothing. Rather, you end up with clothing with a hat and veil-like netting, also known as a Swarmsuit.
But this is the worst kind of semantic hair-splitting and interminably dull, so I'm going to drop it suggst we agree to disagree. Or rather, I'll agree to disagree and you'll tell me I'm wrong and continue to insult my intelligence.
As to doppelgangers, you have found an interesting circumstance where they may in fact also be humanoid creatures RAW. RAI it is obvious that the writer did not intend this to be the case, but this actually doesn't help your argument.
My argument is that 'humanoid' is both a game term and a descriptor without mechanical meaning. You've (twice now) changed it from 'humanoid' to 'humanoid creature', and claimed that the former is descriptive while the latter is a proper game term. The difference being that 'creature' coupled (eh?) to the end.
So in your estimation, 'humanoid creature' is an immutable term of art that refers only to the sub-type of a creature. For this to remain unchallenged, the Doppelganger must be both monstrous humanoid and humanoid sub-types.
To me, the obvious way to reconcile something like "humanoid creature" in the description of the Doppelganger is to acknowledge that the language has not been applied rigorously and a certain amount of GM interpretation will be necessary. Apparently to you, that is not "even remotely valid." It is more obvious, more reasonable that RAW, the Doppelganger has its subtype expanded due to some game terms inadvertently used as descriptive language.
Paizo adopting a system of capital letters or bold print for game terms would certainly solve many (thought not all) of these issues. Since they haven't and likely will not, we're left with having to rely on GMs making some decisions. And that's fine, as long as all parties are willing to agree to that and abide by a ruling made in good faith.
As far as I can tell, if Paizo published a creature named "Clothing" you'd rule that the Sleeve of Many Garments could transform into it as long as they didn't have any Spells or SLAs.
|
|
Looks like another case of table variation...
I tend to favor that the sleeves cannot make a swarmsuit... or if they are used in that way they look like a swarmsuit but do not convey the mechanical benefits of a swarmsuit.
If you were in a hostage situation with a vermin druid threatening to unleash several swarms, you could use the sleeves to cobble together clothing that looks like a swarmsuit and suggest he give up because you're well protected. I'd totally give a solid circumstance bonus to that Bluff check.
Otherwise, what's the limit with the sleeves? Can I take on the clothing of a stiltwalking performer and get stilts? Could I then use those stilts as a 10-foot pole without having to worry about my carrying capacity and safely trigger a trap from a distance? Can I use them to make goggles? Smoke goggles?
Could I run to a tower window and ask my sleeves to be ten layers of clothing which I then partially remove and link together to approximate 100ft of rope which I then climb down?
Padded armor is described as "Little more than heavy, quilted cloth", could I turn my sleeves into that and get an armor bonus? Could I then go transitively to quilted cloth which is described as an "enhanced form of padded armor [that] has internal layers specifically designed to trap arrows" and get DR against arrows? They all appear to be cloth/clothing based on their descriptions.
Common sense would seem to dictate that the crafting root in illusion magic (and not conjuration/transmutation) means that they might sure look like they could do all that, but in reality they can't. If the spell was transmutation or conjuration, I could see the common sense ruling going the route of gaining mechanical benefits from suits/armors/costumes/etc.
|
|
Well, shoot, I hope I don't run into too much table variation.
I mean, other than a random potion, I just spent all my PCs money on this item.
I am sure PFS has a "no takesy-backsey" rule on purchased gear.
Lets see. To spend anything described as "most of your money" on a 200 gp item, you must be first level.
Any time during first level you can retrain any aspect of your character for free, including selling back any gear you have not expended for full price.
Nope, you are fine, sell it back and get your 200 gp back, or don't.
|
|
It's handy in any case, IF it could help in all of those sneak-around during a party PFS sessions, but what benefit does it give? The disguise skill does not really allow for it anywhere except for maybe here ... "Action: Creating a disguise requires 1d3 × 10 minutes of work." - Maybe it saves all that time?
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So Dilettante's Outfit's aren't clothes? They aren't on page 88 to 91 of UE...
They are in clothing in the ARG. Since they use the same format and language as the clothing in the Core.
If you don't like the RAW, then perhaps organized play is not for you.
The problem is we differ on what the RAW is. There is no one true RAW. You don't get to dictate the interpretation of rules that don't have ironclad rules. This is a case of non-iron clad rules. I'm very happy saying you are welcome to use your interpretation of RAW and I won't object. I'm objecting to the notion that you can say the other interpretation isn't RAW and is invalid.