Can Sleeves of Many Garments Produce a Swarm Suit?


Rules Questions

251 to 300 of 443 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

James Risner wrote:
graystone wrote:
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.

They aren't though. They are under gnome equipment and NOT 'in clothing'. It's described as "clothes" that "consist of sturdy boots, a pair of stout linen pants or skirt, a cloth shirt, leather gloves, a hat and cloak, and numerous belts, straps, and accessories (such as scarves, a vest, bits of rope or twine, and bandoleers).

This clearly shows that the pages 88 to 91 of UE aren't an exclusive list and that outfits of clothing may includes many items including things like a hat and can have layers (shirt/cloak/scarves/vests/bandoleers/ect).

Comparing that with the swarmsuit that is "overlapping layers of clothing, coupled with a wide hat" and I'm not seeing any difference.

Grand Lodge

Can Sleeves of Many Garments produce Authoritative vestments?


Phosphorus wrote:
Can Sleeves of Many Garments produce Authoritative vestments?

Hmmm... I think technically yes. It's a garment (IE, clothing) and it states it's non-magical. It's pretty close to being a minor magic item though, so I'd expect more pushback for it than you see from a swarmsuit.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

"When activated, the garments..."

I'm pretty sure you can't "activate" non-magical garments.

And their price is 250gp over that of the Sleeves.


Nefreet wrote:

"When activated, the garments..."

I'm pretty sure you can't "activate" non-magical garments.

And their price is 250gp over that of the Sleeves.

It states "An unactivated focus is completely nonmagical" so it's not technically magic.

Also, you can already make things WAY over the cost of the sleeves. A simple wig can be up to 500gp. Jewelry is also listed in the clothing section so you could also make a royal outfit in the thousands. The sleeves don't have a limit on the value of the outfit made. It just states a "nonmagical set of clothing"...

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

graystone wrote:

They aren't though. They are under gnome equipment and NOT 'in clothing'. It's described as "clothes" that "consist of sturdy boots, a pair of stout linen pants or skirt, a cloth shirt, leather gloves, a hat and cloak, and numerous belts, straps, and accessories (such as scarves, a vest, bits of rope or twine, and bandoleers).

Comparing that with the swarmsuit that is "overlapping layers of clothing, coupled with a wide hat" and I'm not seeing any difference.

The Sleeves are designed for clothing, all the clothing in the Core and UE follow a similar format. The gnome clothing follows this same format. The Swarmsuit does not.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

"When activated, the garments..."

I'm pretty sure you can't "activate" non-magical garments.

And their price is 250gp over that of the Sleeves.

It states "An unactivated focus is completely nonmagical" so it's not technically magic.

Also, you can already make things WAY over the cost of the sleeves. A simple wig can be up to 500gp. Jewelry is also listed in the clothing section so you could also make a royal outfit in the thousands. The sleeves don't have a limit on the value of the outfit made. It just states a "nonmagical set of clothing"...

Yes, an unactivated focus is non magical.

So you can use the sleeves to make an unactivated authoritative vestment. Then you activate it. It is now magical, the sleeves crash (since they can't make magical items) and the vestment turns back into whatever it was before you used the sleeves.

If your GM is really cruel, he makes the sleeves make a save for being damaged by trying to over extend them in this fashion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

FLite, just because an object can be targeted by magic doesn't make it magical.

Grand Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:
FLite, just because an object can be targeted by magic doesn't make it magical.

No, but activating a channel focus *does* make it magical.

Quote:
An activated channel focus radiates faint conjuration (positive energy) or necromancy magic (negative energy). An unactivated focus is completely nonmagical—it is a channel for the magical positive or negative energy, but has no magic of its own.

Unactivated = non magical

activated = weakly magical


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
FLite wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
FLite, just because an object can be targeted by magic doesn't make it magical.

No, but activating a channel focus *does* make it magical.

Quote:
An activated channel focus radiates faint conjuration (positive energy) or necromancy magic (negative energy). An unactivated focus is completely nonmagical—it is a channel for the magical positive or negative energy, but has no magic of its own.

Unactivated = non magical

activated = weakly magical

I suspect it's the channeled energy you're picking up, not the item itself (which would be pretty odd if that's what the designers intended, as you normally can't detect channeled energy).

Shadow Lodge

James Risner wrote:
graystone wrote:
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.

Anzyr wrote:
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.

+1

RAW is variable, because there are cases where there are multiple correct interpretations of RAW that contradict eachother, depending on how you define words. For instance Shield Master threads 1, 2, and 3.


wakedown wrote:

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.

The limit would be items on the Clothing list and items whose descriptions state they are clothing.


EvilPaladin wrote:
James Risner wrote:
graystone wrote:
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.

Anzyr wrote:
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.

+1

RAW is variable, because there are cases where there are multiple correct interpretations of RAW that contradict eachother, depending on how you define words. For instance Shield Master threads 1, 2, and 3.

Ya, sometimes the RAW is unclear. Sometimes it is ambiguous. Sometimes. This is not one of those times.


So I have a more fundamental question regarding both the SoMG and the Hat of Disguise.

Both of these are built on the same Disguise Self spell, from the illusion (glamer) schoole of magic.

Here's what the PRD says about glamer quoted in pertinent part:

PRD on Figments and Glamer wrote:

Figment: ***

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.***

Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.

Emphasis added.

It would seem to meet that based on the spell description, one cannot use Disguise Self to give herself a Cold Weather Outfit and enjoy the benefits there of.

Do people believe that a Hat of Disguise or Sleeve of Many Garments should be able to reproduce the mechanical benefits of a Cold Weather Outfit?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
EvilPaladin wrote:
James Risner wrote:
graystone wrote:
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.

Anzyr wrote:
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.

+1

RAW is variable, because there are cases where there are multiple correct interpretations of RAW that contradict eachother, depending on how you define words. For instance Shield Master threads 1, 2, and 3.

Ya, sometimes the RAW is unclear. Sometimes it is ambiguous. Sometimes. This is not one of those times.
Can Sleeves of Many Garments Produce a Swarm Suit? wrote:
6 Page thread in which varying viewpoints are presented, hinging off of ambiguous bits of RAW [the definition of transformation and of clothing]

So far, I see the following options as the main arguments:

No, the sleeves are merely illusions and "transform" refers merely to a change in appearance[one of the definitions], thus giving you only the illusion of a swarmsuit.

No, the sleeves can only produce things listed on the clothing table in UE.

Yes, the sleeves aren't illusions[they say they transform], and the suit says its "clothing" allowing it to work even though it isn't on clothing table.

I agree with the 3rd bit, as it is the cleanest one as far as the rules go [because if not, do I get any benefit? what about the dilettante's outfit?], but there is a basis for the other two that is just as valid as the third. Were the rules completely unambiguous, then there would not be an argument.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:

So I have a more fundamental question regarding both the SoMG and the Hat of Disguise.

Both of these are built on the same Disguise Self spell, from the illusion (glamer) schoole of magic.

Here's what the PRD says about glamer quoted in pertinent part:

PRD on Figments and Glamer wrote:

Figment: ***

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.***

Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.

Emphasis added.

It would seem to meet that based on the spell description, one cannot use Disguise Self to give herself a Cold Weather Outfit and enjoy the benefits there of.

Do people believe that a Hat of Disguise or Sleeve of Many Garments should be able to reproduce the mechanical benefits of a Cold Weather Outfit?

The Hat of Disguise casts Disguise Self, so no, you can't get a Cold-Weather Outfit. Similarly, the Hat's effects always allow a saving throw because it is clearly an illusion. The Sleeves aren't clearly an illusion[they don't work like a spell or reference illusions in how they function, and they don't allow a save]. Furthermore, were the Sleeves only an illusion and provided no benefit, they'd essentially be a Two-Hundred gold disguise kit minus the benefit to disguise checks. So, I think Hat no, but Sleeves, yes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
EvilPaladin wrote:
The Hat of Disguise casts Disguise Self, so no, you can't get a Cold-Weather Outfit.

That's not what the item says.

PRD - Hat of Disguise wrote:
This apparently normal hat allows its wearer to alter her appearance as with a disguise self spell.

There's nothing that says you are casting the spell any more than when you are using a SoMG. Nor does it say the item "casts" anything. If HoD "casts" a spell, then so does a SoMG.

Quote:
Similarly, the Hat's effects always allow a saving throw because it is clearly an illusion. The Sleeves aren't clearly an illusion[they don't work like a spell or reference illusions in how they function

Actually, it is explicitly stated in the item entry:

Ultimate Equipment wrote:


Sleeves of Many Garments

Price 200 gp; Aura faint illusion; CL 1st; Weight 1 lb.

The magic involved is explicitly stated to be an illusion.

What it seems you are trying to do, along with several others is argue a definition of "transform" which is inconsistent with the underlying spell. I find this odd. The second definition of "transform" is

Merriam Webster's Definition of "transform" wrote:
b. make a thorough or dramatic change in the form, appearance, or character of.

Trying to cherry pick a definition of transform to suggest a structural change and thus superseding the actual school of magic is not compelling and smacks of bad faith.

Quote:
Furthermore, were the Sleeves only an illusion and provided no benefit, they'd essentially be a Two-Hundred gold disguise kit minus the benefit to disguise checks

Perhaps it's a matter of perspective.

They do provide a benefit, it's just not one tied to a specific mechanic. The clothes provide you with clothing that does not impede your attempts to fit-in, in other words, I don't have to go buy an outfit every time I attend a social event. Depending on your campaign, that could save you a lot of money.

This is a 200gp item that allows for richer roleplaying as characters can spend a pittance to always appear impeccably dressed or always appear like a bum. So while it does not provide a mechanical benefit, it also allows you to avoid a penalty. Does it seem unreasonable for the game to provide fluff item that would work in such a way?

It would seem far more unreasonable to allow someone to spend 200gp to reap the mechanical benefits of every Clothing item in the book including those which happen to use the word clothing in the description.

Quote:
So, I think Hat no, but Sleeves, yes.

So you think the designers intended for a 200gp to do what the 1800gp item and the underlying spell cannot, and that is protect against the elements?

Sorry, that's doesn't make much sense. If it is what the designers intended, I'm not seeing it based on what's been posted here.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Anzyr wrote:
Ya, sometimes the RAW is unclear. Sometimes it is ambiguous. Sometimes. This is not one of those times.

According to you. But you don't get to dictate how others read words.


No, but I do get to read plain facts. Note that they are plain facts. And point out to others that they have gotten the plain facts wrong. Politely, of course.


EvilPaladin wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
EvilPaladin wrote:
James Risner wrote:
graystone wrote:
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.

Anzyr wrote:
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.

+1

RAW is variable, because there are cases where there are multiple correct interpretations of RAW that contradict eachother, depending on how you define words. For instance Shield Master threads 1, 2, and 3.

Ya, sometimes the RAW is unclear. Sometimes it is ambiguous. Sometimes. This is not one of those times.
Can Sleeves of Many Garments Produce a Swarm Suit? wrote:
6 Page thread in which varying viewpoints are presented, hinging off of ambiguous bits of RAW [the definition of transformation and of clothing]

So far, I see the following options as the main arguments:

No, the sleeves are merely illusions and "transform" refers merely to a change in appearance[one of the definitions], thus giving you only the illusion of a swarmsuit.

No, the sleeves can only produce things listed on the clothing table in UE.

Yes, the sleeves aren't illusions[they say they transform], and the suit says its "clothing" allowing it to work even though...

I take your point, but the Sleeves' are not a Disguise Self Spell, and they do not cast a Disguise Self Spell.

Just as there appear to be significant differences between the Shatterspike and the Shatter Spell, and there are big differences between the Lyre of Building and the Fabricate spell, so there are differences between the Sleeves of Many Garments and the Disguise Self Spell.

The Disguise Self Spell, just changes one's appearance. The Sleeves Transforms your garments. That's not the same thing.

If what you are saying were true, then you couldn't use the Sleeves to make yourself warm or cold weather clothing, and the Sleeves really just don't say that. They don't have to if "transform" really means "transform." Otherwise that really is an egregious omission.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:

I take your point, but the Sleeves' are not a Disguise Self Spell, and they do not cast a Disguise Self Spell.

Just as there appear to be significant differences between the Shatterspike and the Shatter Spell, and there are big differences between the Lyre of Building and the Fabricate spell, so there are differences between the Sleeves of Many Garments and the Disguise Self Spell.

Not quite accurate and arguably misleading.

A Shatterspike lists the following items as part of its construction:

Ultimate Equipment - Shatterspike wrote:

Construction

Requirements Str 13, Craft Arms and Armor, Improved Sunder, Power Attack, shatter; Price 2,315 gp

Please note that the crafter must have access to Improved Sunder and Power Attack. This is the designer's way of accounting for things the weapon can do beyond the spell. But more to the point, the magic things that the spell can do are consistent with the evocation school of magic.

PRD - Evocation wrote:

Evocation

Evocation spells manipulate magical energy or tap an unseen source of power to produce a desired end. In effect, an evocation draws upon magic to create something out of nothing. Many of these spells produce spectacular effects, and evocation spells can deal large amounts of damage.

The same is true for the Lyre of Building. While the item can do more than the Fabricate spell, the item is ultimately just fabricating. It isn't doing damage, or creating illusions or exhibiting mind-affecting spells. Nothing it does is explicitly in violation of the transmutation school of magic.

Contrast that with the SoMG and HoD and both have the exact same construction details. Only the cost is different And as one would expect HoD work on both the clothes AND the individual. But to then turn around and say that the item that is 1/9 the cost is actually able to convey mechanical benefits is nonsensical. Pinning that belief on how we interpret "transform" raises more skepticism.

So the takeaway here is that the school of magic associated with the item is what determines the framework in which we interpret the item, more so than the spell itself. Illusions do not convey physical benefits. If you can show me an item from the illusion school which does, that would help your cause.

Quote:
The Disguise Self Spell, just changes one's appearance. The Sleeves Transforms your garments. That's not the same thing.

The entire argument of yours require that we believe "transform" can ONLY be read as a physical change. There's nothing that in the description of the text that leads us to that belief. It is entirely consistent with the English language for "transform" to refer to a change in appearance. Such an interpretation results in the game being internally consistent.

For the record, I will say the use of "transform" in this context is very problematic. I think its very rational to look at that word alone and believe the author did intend a physical change. But that doesn't add up with an Illusion aura. If we read "transform" as appearance change, then suddenly things add up.

Quote:
If what you are saying were true, then you couldn't use the Sleeves to make yourself warm or cold weather clothing, and the Sleeves really just don't say that.

Yes the do say that, implicitly. The item explicitly states it is associated with the ILLUSION school of magic, not the Transmutation or even Evocation. Given that the game already defines what illusions can and cannot do, the Sleeves really do say you can't get the mechanical benefits of a Cold Weather Outfit.

Quote:
Otherwise that really is an egregious omission.

The rules are filled with omissions. As far as it being "egregious", that's a matter of opinion, but even if it were, that wouldn't mean a 200gp item based on a level 1 Illusion(glamer) spell is allowed to make physical transformations.

Could it be that the designers really intended the clothes to be physically transformed when a more expensive item does not? I suppose, but I really hope they aren't that arbitrary.


Considering it's limited to non-magical clothing, doesn't give you a disguise bonus (or a bonus to any skill at all), or change *your* appearance, yes the designers really intended the clothes to be physically transformed, Hence language like "These new clothes fit her perfectly" and "her clothes revert to their original form." Not appearance; Form. Not new appearance; new clothes, that are even specified to fit. Not appear to fit; fit. How many context clue-by-fours does one need hit with?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Considering it's limited to non-magical clothing, doesn't give you a disguise bonus (or a bonus to any skill at all), or change *your* appearance, yes the designers really intended the clothes to be physically transformed, Hence language like "These new clothes fit her perfectly" and "her clothes revert to their original form." Not appearance; Form. Not new appearance; new clothes, that are even specified to fit. Not appear to fit; fit. How many context clue-by-fours does one need hit with?

"form" != function

So the clothes can only fit her perfectly? They can't be baggy or too big?

Look, you could be correct. But there's more evidence against you than there is for you. Your whole argument rest squarely on insisting the definition of "transform" which is consistent with the item relying on illusion magic, is the wrong definition of transform. That's a four-legged table with one leg missing and the other three of different lengths.

If you are correct, then the designers are throwing some serious curve balls within the rules for a 200gp item. Does that makes sense? If this were a 100k item, I would be more inclined to concede some scope creep. But at 200gp?

My issue here isn't really about the appropriateness of such an item, it's that if Paizo is offering an "illusion" based item that actually does physically transformations, it undermines the internal consistency in interpreting the rules. Your interpretation means that Paizo's use of labels with descriptions does not have to obey any harmony. That's bad for the game. So it's more about my hoping that Paizo is not sloppy about what it means when they tell us this item is associated with the illusion school of magic.

It's entirely possible the persons involved with releasing this item wanted to skirt the rules with how they crafted it, and that's what I'm afraid of. If Paizo wants such an item in the game that actually conveys the physical benefits, then base it off of Alter Self and associate it with Transmutation.

And FYI, context is a subjective call in this case, not an objective one.


No. *All* the evidence is in my favor. Literally all of it. The fact that you believe this should be a 100k item suggest that you are probably not very familiar with item pricing in Pathfinder as such an amount for what Sleeves does is literally so overpriced as to be a parody. What evidence is in my favor you ask? Simple:

Swarmsuit itself says it is clothing. Fact.
Swarmsuit is non-magical. Fact.
Sleeves can transform your garments into new non-magical clothing. Fact.

If using a item that has illusion to craft it make physical changes bothers you, I have no words to use other then "It's magic, deal with it."


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
No. *All* the evidence is in my favor. Literally all of it.

You've tried to make similar statement throughout this thread. This kills your credibility as someone with any objective reasoning skills. Essentially you're resorting to "proof by assertion."

Look it up.

Quote:
The fact that you believe this should be a 100k item...

That's not what I said and trotting out that straw man argument is more evidence of bad faith discussion.

Quote:
Sleeves can transform your garments into new non-magical clothing. Fact.

What is fact is that "transform" has two applicable definitions. One indicates a physical change and one indicates a change in appearance. Look it up.

Quote:
If using a item that has illusion to craft it make physical changes bothers you, I have no words to use other then "It's magic, deal with it."

If the fact that an Illusion-based item can't make physical transformations bothers you....deal with it...it's a game.


N N 959 wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
No. *All* the evidence is in my favor. Literally all of it.

You've tried to make similar statement throughout this thread. This kills your credibility as someone with any objective reasoning skills. Essentially you're resorting to "proof by assertion."

Look it up.

Quote:
The fact that you believe this should be a 100k item...

That's not what I said and trotting out that straw man argument is more evidence of bad faith discussion.

Quote:
Sleeves can transform your garments into new non-magical clothing. Fact.

What is fact is that "transform" has two applicable definitions. One indicates a physical change and one indicates a change in appearance. Look it up.

Quote:
If using a item that has illusion to craft it make physical changes bothers you, I have no words to use other then "It's magic, deal with it."

If the fact that an Illusion-based item can't make physical transformations bothers you....deal it with...it's a game.

I've actually listed rules that explain why my interpretation is correct. They're even listed by which ones are facts. When you add up the facts, the answer is obvious. Asserting that one is correct about 2+2=4 repeatedly does not invalidate their argument. It makes it stronger, since the facts are immutable regardless how many people without facts say that 2+2=3. Also the illusion argument isn't helping you, when again context isn't just against you, it's completely against you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's amazing to me how someone could make statements such as "*All* the evidence is in my favor. Literally all of it." It's almost like Anzyr has never watched a debate or seen a CSI show. =P No matter how much evidence someone has for their argument, there's always evidence for the other side. To make such declarative statements gets you nowhere in proving your point.

The illusion argument is, in fact (let's use that word since it seems to be a trigger), a valid argument. Let's look at the PRD (which I hope that you agree Paizo is the official source of how to rule things, otherwise we shouldn't even be talking).

Transmutation school of magic states:

Transmutation wrote:
Transmutation spells change the properties of some creature, thing, or condition.

The Transmutation school sounds more along the lines of the effect you're envisioning for the Sleeves (providing a non-disguise bonus from the type of clothing transformed into, DR/swarms, etc.). Let's compare that with the illusion school of magic:

Illusion wrote:
Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. They cause people to see things that are not there, not see things that are there, hear phantom noises, or remember things that never happened.

So the clothes that the Sleeves transform into "are not there". Since the Sleeves are illusion magic, and we know what illusion magic is and isn't, then we know what type of effect it is. They may appear to be there, but they really "are not there". Thus, they provide no stated benefit except at DM's discretion a circumstance bonus to a disguise check or to make it easier to blend into the populous. To further illustrate this point, let's look at the opening sentences for the subheadings/types of Illusion magic.

Figment wrote:
A figment spell creates a false sensation. (later on) Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects...
Glamer wrote:
A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.
Pattern wrote:
Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see, but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it.
Phantasm wrote:
A phantasm spell creates a mental image that usually only the caster and the subject (or subjects) of the spell can perceive.

The only illusions that have any possibility to cause real change are the Shadow type.

Shadow wrote:
A shadow spell creates something that is partially real from extradimensional energy. Such illusions can have real effects. Damage dealt by a shadow illusion is real.

Unfortunately, Disguise Self is an Illusion (Glamer) type. Unless the creators of the garment seriously "dun goofed" in the spell and school choice for the garments (which I believe is unlikely because I have a little bit more faith in Paizo than that), the effect does not produce actual clothing or bonuses from clothing type. For reference, here's a short list of Illusion Spells. Every single one of those spells does not produce or change an item, only images/sounds/obfuscation of things actually there/etc. Thus, this would be the first time to my knowledge that an illusion effect produced actual physical change in something and would be an overstep of the illusion magic school's bounds.

So, from all of this, taking the term "transform" into correct context (the context of illusion magic, not semantic jargon context) we can adequately conclude that the Sleeves effect does not provide the damage reduction from the Swarmsuit regardless whether it can take its appearance or not. This also goes for any other clothing the Sleeves can transform into.

"Swarmsuit itself says it is clothing. Fact.
Swarmsuit is non-magical. Fact.
Sleeves can transform your garments into new non-magical clothing. Fact."
Illusion magic cannot create actual material and by extension does not provide any benefits of that material to the user. Fact.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I think I may be changing my stance on this item the more it gets debated.

The illusion evidence is rather strong.

Which makes me sad, because I've always liked the idea of using the Sleeves to emulate Cold Weather gear.

I still won't have any of my characters get rid of them. I think one of the hallmarks of character background is personal fashion, and whether they're illusory or not, you can't beat a 200gp item that changes your appearance on a whim.

Mechanical benefit or not.


Nefreet wrote:

I think I may be changing my stance on this item the more it gets debated.

The illusion evidence is rather strong.

Which makes me sad, because I've always liked the idea of using the Sleeves to emulate Cold Weather gear.

I still won't have any of my characters get rid of them. I think one of the hallmarks of character background is personal fashion, and whether they're illusory or not, you can't beat a 200gp item that changes your appearance on a whim.

Mechanical benefit or not.

I still see both sides. It's sketchy enough that I likely wouldn't try it with any of my characters. Not yet sure how I'd rule as a GM.

Grand Lodge

I think I will be ruling it as illusion.

That said, if it came up mid adventure, and someone was relying on it working the other way, I would probably give them a free pass on it the first time it happened. Sort of I would hate to cut the legs out from under someone who was working in good faith.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Anzyr wrote:
I've actually listed rules that explain why my interpretation is correct.

The problem is that we don't agree those rules say what you say they do. We differ on the RAW of those rules.

You can't accept that there might be two interpretations, so you assert that your way is the one true RAW and when shown that you are doing so you belittle those that can't read the "plain facts" as you put it.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Another way to look at this:

If this allows you to gain mechanical benefit by transforming into Cold Weather or Swarmsuits then why can't you gain mechanical benefits like immunity to mind-affecting by transforming into a plant with Plant Shape. You actually take the form of the plant. Why don't you also get the immunities.

The same reason this item doesn't grant you the "immunities" (aka protection from swarms) of the swarmsuit.


Nefreet wrote:

I think I may be changing my stance on this item the more it gets debated.

The illusion evidence is rather strong.

Which makes me sad, because I've always liked the idea of using the Sleeves to emulate Cold Weather gear.

I still won't have any of my characters get rid of them. I think one of the hallmarks of character background is personal fashion, and whether they're illusory or not, you can't beat a 200gp item that changes your appearance on a whim.

Mechanical benefit or not.

The illusion evidence is largely illusory. Everything about how the item reads suggests an actual physical transformation. If it was an illusion it wouldnt need to specify that the clothes fit you perfectly or that they were always clean and mended or that removing the sleeves caused your clothes to revert to their original form.

Also if it were an illusion it would specify what sort of illusion it was based on, as for example the Hat of Disguise does.


James Risner wrote:

Another way to look at this:

If this allows you to gain mechanical benefit by transforming into Cold Weather or Swarmsuits then why can't you gain mechanical benefits like immunity to mind-affecting by transforming into a plant with Plant Shape. You actually take the form of the plant. Why don't you also get the immunities.

The same reason this item doesn't grant you the "immunities" (aka protection from swarms) of the swarmsuit.

WTF????

These two things are not the same in any way, shape or form.

Also all of the transformation abilities grant you some of the benefits of the form taken including in some cases outright immunities such as Form of the Dragon III.


andreww wrote:
The illusion evidence is largely illusory.

I see what you did there.

Seriously, people, I don't think anyone will be further moved by this argument. Hit FAQ and move on.


James Risner wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
I've actually listed rules that explain why my interpretation is correct.

The problem is that we don't agree those rules say what you say they do. We differ on the RAW of those rules.

You can't accept that there might be two interpretations, so you assert that your way is the one true RAW and when shown that you are doing so you belittle those that can't read the "plain facts" as you put it.

There really isn't two interpretations. The so called illusions evidence is people making up rules like "Things made with illusion spells can't cause a physical transformation." That isn't a rule. The rules cited by Dimminsy at no point mention that an item with an illusion spell in its creation requirements can't cause a physical change. Dimminsy is citing rules for spells, not magic item creation and thus inadvertently showing that the illusion argument *is* as andreww says illusory. And that's the problem with all these other interpretations. They are making arguments around things that are not actually in the rules. The rules for this really are simply. Swarmsuit is non-magical clothing. Sleeves can transform your current garments into a new set of non-magical clothing. Therefore, Sleeves can transform your garment garments into a new, perfectly fitting Swarmsuit. That's all the rules say. And that really is all there to it.

People who are disagreeing really need to cite some kind rule that magic item creation involving illusion spells can't be used to make items that cause a physical change. There is no such rule of course, so it makes me amused watching them try to justify their position.

Grand Lodge

Anzyr wrote:
The so called illusions evidence is people making up rules like "Things made with illusion spells can't cause a physical transformation." That isn't a rule.

I am really finding it harder and harder to take you seriously at this point.

We cited the rule that illusions can't create physical changes, but somehow by putting the illusion spell into an item that can cast it *as an illusion* (note the item's aura) somehow it becomes a transmutation spell? While still having an illusion aura?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

First off, dudes and dudettes, Anzyr will not change his mind, or accept that he may not be 100% clearly and obviously correct, or that people that disagree with him may not be fools. There is no evidence of this ever happening on the boards, in the discussions that I've seen anyway. This is a factual statement; Anzyr is welcome to his opinion of course, I'm just saying your energies may be better spent elsewhere.

Second, I sadly agree along with Nefreet that the intent seems almost certainly illusion. However, I'll continue to run it allowing players to transform into things off the actual clothing list for realz, because that's nothing overpowered, until we get a ruling that says otherwise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think this thread deserves to be enshrined as one of the great troll threads of the year. It sucks you in and just won't let go.

Having said that, I'm still firmly in the 'It's an Illusion' camp. Especially since N N 959 and Dimminsy went the extra mile and laid it all out plain and clear.

Also I'm betting this thread gets 'no answer required':

Ravingdork wrote:

Is the effect produced by the Sleeves of Many Garments an illusion effect? Or a transmutation effect? Is it capable of granting a mechanical benefit such as protecting a person from swarms as a swarm suit, or from the cold as a cold weather outfit; or is it only meant to disguise (and if so, what mechanical advantages does that grant)?

This thread is primarily for clean, organized FAQing of the question. Please go to this thread for related discussion.

Since the magic type is clearly listed as Illusion. You may need to word the question differently Ravingdork. Still, I FAQ'ed it anyway.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Inviktus wrote:
I think this thread deserves to be enshrined as one of the great troll threads of the year. It sucks you in and just won't let go.

I can't stop reading this thread and I hate myself for it.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

We actually have a good number of FAQ hits on this thread.

And it's certainly generating discussion.

I don't see the need for a new FAQ thread, especially when it just encourages people to comment here anyways.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Yeah, FAQs, I think, carry more weight when attached to a 300 post thread anyway :/. It's proof that it really is a contentious issue and that, no, an answer really is required.


Rudy2 wrote:

First off, dudes and dudettes, Anzyr will not change his mind, or accept that he may not be 100% clearly and obviously correct, or that people that disagree with him may not be fools. There is no evidence of this ever happening on the boards, in the discussions that I've seen anyway. This is a factual statement; Anzyr is welcome to his opinion of course, I'm just saying your energies may be better spent elsewhere.

Second, I sadly agree along with Nefreet that the intent seems almost certainly illusion. However, I'll continue to run it allowing players to transform into things off the actual clothing list for realz, because that's nothing overpowered, until we get a ruling that says otherwise.

I'll get back to this in my own time, but if you can't find posts where I say the rules are genuinely unclear (because they actually are, Magic Jar stuff and when are you, you for example) and times where I have gladly admitted I was wrong (because I was it's totally a real thing) then you aren't very familiar with my post history.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's certainly possible; I haven't read all of your posts. That doesn't change the larger point that further argument in this thread is clearly a waste of time.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Nefreet wrote:

We actually have a good number of FAQ hits on this thread.

And it's certainly generating discussion.

I don't see the need for a new FAQ thread, especially when it just encourages people to comment here anyways.

Except this thread doesn't ask all the questions, at least not in one place.

The OP of this thread has 20 FAQ requests and asks:

"Can this magical item produce a swarm suit?"

That's it. It doesn't help us determine if it is transmutation or illusion, it doesn't tell us what mechanical benefits it offers if any, or anything else for that matter. If the answer comes back "yes" we won't even know what turning it into a swarm suit even does for you!

It's too narrow a question if you ask me. Even if it gets answered, it just leaves too many questions in its wake, hence the other thread.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

That's fair; no harm in FAQing both.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
There really isn't two interpretations.

You don't get the option to tell other people what they believe, understand or interpret.

Grand Lodge

James Risner wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
There really isn't two interpretations.
You don't get the option to tell other people what they believe, understand or interpret.

I really believe that he thinks that his interpretation is the only possible one that can be made, and that the rest of us are arguing in bad faith.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
FLite wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
There really isn't two interpretations.
You don't get the option to tell other people what they believe, understand or interpret.
I really believe that he thinks that his interpretation is the only possible one that can be made, and that the rest of us are arguing in bad faith.

We can't be sure if your belief is valid until Anzyr gives us the all clear.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
andreww wrote:

The illusion evidence is largely illusory. Everything about how the item reads suggests an actual physical transformation. If it was an illusion it wouldnt need to specify that the clothes fit you perfectly or that they were always clean and mended or that removing the sleeves caused your clothes to revert to their original form.

Also if it were an illusion it would specify what sort of illusion it was based on, as for example the Hat of Disguise does.

The Hat of Disguise mentions the spell Disguise Self twice, once in the rules text and once in the craft text. The Sleeves of Many Garments mention Disguise Self in the craft text. The "sort of illusion" the Sleeves and the Hat are both based on is same spell Disguise Self, which was specified.

The reason it seems like it's a physical transformation is because you're reading transform in a physical sense instead of the context of illusion magic (which cannot cause physical change, only the appearance of change). "Andrew died from a gunshot" means something completely different when at a funeral compared to sitting in front of an Xbox.

Based on the spell used, it seems to me that the clothes are what are really illusory.

Anzyr wrote:

The so called illusions evidence is people making up rules like "Things made with illusion spells can't cause a physical transformation." That isn't a rule. The rules cited by Dimminsy at no point mention that an item with an illusion spell in its creation requirements can't cause a physical change. Dimminsy is citing rules for spells, not magic item creation...

(later) People who are disagreeing really need to cite some kind rule that magic item creation involving illusion spells can't be used to make items that cause a physical change.

Hold on, let me go make a vest that uses only Divination magic to become immune to grapples (or is that Freedom of Movement?). Let me go make a belt that uses only Necromancy magic to let me breath a cone of fire twice per day (or is that Dragon's Breath?). I thought you used an appropriate spell for the magical effect you're looking for for magic item creation, not Ant Haul to put a Cure Critical Wounds in a potion.

You are the one that needs to cite an example of an item that only uses one school of magic (in this example Illusion) that has the effects of another school of magic (in this example Transmutation). Something like the examples I used in the previous paragraph.

Example of something that follows the "appropriate spell use mold": Armor of the Deep

Armor of the Deep wrote:

Aura moderate abjuration; CL 11th

Slot armor; Price 24,650 gp; Weight 50 lbs.
DESCRIPTION
This +1 full plate is decorated with a wave and fish motif. Although the armor remains as heavy and bulky as normal full plate, the wearer of plate armor of the deep is treated as unarmored for purposes of Swim checks. The wearer can breathe underwater and can converse with any water-breathing creature with a language.

CONSTRUCTION
Requirements Craft Magic Arms and Armor, freedom of movement, tongues, water breathing; Cost 13,150 gp

Freedom of Movement = counted as unarmored for Swim checks. Water Breathing = wearer can breathe underwater. Tongues = wearer can converse with any talking water-breather creature. No abilities are having an extra-marital affair on their spell's school.

Now none of what I've said was to put down or insult. I only wished to show what I believe to be the absurdity in the opposing argument(s). Hopefully I didn't come across in a way in which I did not intend. =) Personally, do I think the item would be OP if it were to use Anzyr's definition of what the item can do? Nope. Do I think it's the correct (RAW) way to read the item? Nope. FAQ this junk though (and/or Ravingdork's other thread) 'cause I've already spent too much time on this thread and would prefer a clarification to stop this madness lol..

251 to 300 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