Lots of magic items do very different things from the spells used in them. Gauntlets of the Weaponmaster for example can provide the benefits of Greater Heroism despite only Heroism being used in the craft. And although it functions similarly to Gloves of Storing it uses Rope Trick in its construction instead of Shrink Item. The spells selected for the crafting do not dictate what rules the item follows. The rules for what the magic item does are contained in its description. And the description very clearly transform the clothes. Note the language.
These new clothes fit her perfectly and are always clean and mended unless she specifically designates otherwise. When she removes the sleeves, her clothes revert to their original form.
Not new appearance. New Clothes. Not original appearance, original form. Or do you believe Illusion spells actually alter an object form?
@James Risner/Nefreet - I have not told anyone what to believe and indeed have said and maintain the following:
"You are entitled to your own interpretation, you just aren't entitled to your interpretation being valid."
I have no problem with difference people having different interpretations. I do have a problem with them claiming that interpretations that are not supported by the rules are valid. To some extent, Flite has the right of it in that I am very skeptical of the good faith of arguments like "Illusion magic can't do this, even though there's not rule that says magic items created with illusion magic can't transform objects." That's not a rule. A magic item is not a spell. To me these arguments are purely to prevent the dread case of "being wrong on the internet". That being said, I will continue to argue with the presumption that everyone's interpretation is in good faith.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"You are entitled to your own interpretation, you just aren't entitled to your interpretation being valid."
Do you realize that what you just said here is "you are entitled to be wrong, only I am entitled to be right?"
I am very skeptical of the good faith of arguments like "Illusion magic can't do this, even though there's not rule that says magic items created with illusion magic can't transform objects."
...
That being said, I will continue to argue with the presumption that everyone's interpretation is in good faith.
Except you just said that your presumption is that people were arguing in bad faith.
You are wrapping very polite and pleasant frames around extremely insulting statements, and then saying because you have used the proper social framing, your words were not insults.
That really isn't how reality works.
(This is important enough that I am forgoing making analogies to how your illusion of politeness compares to the illusion of fine clothing provided by SoMG)
"You are entitled to your own interpretation, you just aren't entitled to your interpretation being valid."Do you realize that what you just said here is "you are entitled to be wrong, only I am entitled to be right?"
I am very skeptical of the good faith of arguments like "Illusion magic can't do this, even though there's not rule that says magic items created with illusion magic can't transform objects."
...
That being said, I will continue to argue with the presumption that everyone's interpretation is in good faith.Except you just said that your presumption is that people were arguing in bad faith.
You are wrapping very polite and pleasant frames around extremely insulting statements, and then saying because you have used the proper social framing, your words were not insults.
That really isn't how reality works.
(This is important enough that I am forgoing making analogies to how your illusion of politeness compares to the illusion of fine clothing provided by SoMG)
You are misreading the first sentence. It means that everyone is entitled to an opinion. It just means that not all opinions are equally valid. People are entitled to believe in Intelligent Design. They are equally entitled to being wrong about it. In much the same way, you can believe whatever you want about what the Sleeves of Many Garments do. Just be prepared to accept that your opinion might not be valid. Because again, being entitled to your opinion and being entitled to your opinion being valid, are to very different things.
You are also misreading my second statement, which says I am willing to presume that they are arguing in good faith, despite my growing suspicions to the contrary.
This is the rules part of the messageboards, why do certain people attack others on their opinions. Until Paizo rules, this entire thread is conjecture.
And Anzyr, if you want to talk about Intelligent Design, please take it to the RSP area of the board, and not try to shoehorn your (dis)beliefs in the rules section.
This is the rules part of the messageboards, why do certain people attack others on their opinions. Until Paizo rules, this entire thread is conjecture.
And Anzyr, if you want to talk about Intelligent Design, please take it to the RSP area of the board, and not try to shoehorn your (dis)beliefs in the rules section.
I can't imagine anyone attacking anyone over opinions. It's just that some opinions, like 2+2=3 or things that do not keep with scientific evidence and are unsupported by facts, happen to be less valid then those that are in keeping with scientific evidence and are supported by facts. Since the rules support Sleeves producing Swarmsuit, any other opinion, while fine to have is nonetheless not valid. Surely you don't think that all opinions are equally valid, so why would it be the case here?
I could use Weapon Focus working for literally only one specific weapon, rather then Intelligent Design if you would prefer that instead though. I'm flexible like that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, another heated rules thread of the week. I always enjoy my summer reruns of As Golarion Turns...
I'd like to point out here, like I have in some other threads, that "RAW" can mean two things:
Run-as-written: What is employed in PFS play so that GMs do not modify encounters, stat blocks or major part of scenarios
and
Rules-as-written: The words as they are printed on the page
In general, I'm usually surprised when people passionately debate "the RAW meaning" of a magic item, feat, ability, etc.
In general, the "RAW meaning" is irrelevant. The interpretation of the GM is what is relevant, whether that is you, or the guy organizing the game you're playing in.
Both the Core game you play at home and the PFS Guide to Organized Play suggest that rules questions be resolved by the common sense of the GM.
Individual GMs may take many approaches to working through their common sense. They might look at how powerful the ability is relative to other abilities at that level. That might look at how expensive the item is relative to other items of that cost. That might look at the schools of magic used to create that item.
As this thread proves, there are several interpretations of the printed text on the page for the sleeves:
Interpretation #1: The rule as written indicates "clothing" - any mundane item described as clothing should be good to actually have, along with the mechanical benefit.
Interpretation #2: The rule as written indicates "clothing" - any item from the Clothing table (capital "C") should be good to have, possibly along with the mechanical benefit. Every item that includes "clothing" in the description isn't open though.
Interpretation #3: The item seems to be based on illusion magic. Any clothing gained is mostly illusionary and thus cannot convey a mechanical benefit.
All 3 camps of interpretation looked at the rule as written (aka the words as printed on the page) and applied their gaming common sense. Not everyone has the same common sense in this case .. which isn't to say someone's common sense is better or worse than someone else's .. but that based on their personal relationship with other printed rules, their method for rationalizing how an item/ability/feat is meant to work.
I play in home campaigns where everyone can use weapon finesse on finesse weapons without feats. Those campaigns aren't wrong, that's just how the GM runs them. As a player, you're going to experience variance between GMs, especially on the game's many copious subtleties. So GM #1 runs sleeves as allowing swarmsuits and GM #2 says they are just illusions without mechanical benefits. The net result? GM #2's swarms are going to be slightly harder to combat. Sometimes (usually, actually) a harder combat is more fun than an easier one. As long as GM #2 is a benign GM, folks should have a good time. Remember every fight is staged and balanced to let the PCs win it! Handily. Even without a swarmsuit conjured (or glamered) by sleeves of many garments.
I'm not heavily invested in this thread, but I support all three sides application of common sense in their reading of the printed rules to arrive at how they will run this item at their tables. I handily expect table variation from this item and don't see that as that big of a deal in the interim period until the design team tackles the questions presented here. I don't imagine this one is high on their list though, as it's not particularly a big deal any of three ways folks are planning to run it.
As this thread proves, there are several interpretations of the printed text on the page for the sleeves:
Interpretation #1: The rule as written indicates "clothing" - any mundane item described as clothing should be good to actually have, along with the mechanical benefit.
Interpretation #2: The rule as written indicates "clothing" - any item from the Clothing table (capital "C") should be good to have, possibly along with the mechanical benefit. Every item that includes "clothing" in the description isn't open though.
And for either of those, an interpretation is necessary. There's no "correct" interpretation of the RAW for what constitutes non-magical clothing because there's no written rule defining it.
If you say "anything in the Clothing table" you're making an interpretation, because there is nothing in the rules or in the description of the SoMG that says "non-magical clothing is limited to the Clothing table." Although arguably, this is probably the closest to a rules definition for clothing, limiting though it may be.
Likewise, if you say "anything described as clothing but without magical properties" you're making an interpretation, one that specifically bars a large number of items on the Clothing table due to their description as outfits.
And if your interpretation is a hybrid of the two (e.g. anything on the Clothing table + anything described as clothing, but not outfits or cloth) then your case for ironclad rules support disappears completely. It may well be a valid interpretation, but that's all it is.
Beyond that, Anzyr's shaky grasp of the meaning of the word "couple" leaves he and I with different thresholds of what constitutes "described as clothing."
So, yeah...expect table variation.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I am willing to presume that they are arguing in good faith, despite my growing suspicions to the contrary.
With your "entitled to be wrong" comments, I no longer think you are debating in good faith.
Pretty much everyone in here is willing to accept "there are two or more interpretations, expect table variance until the FAQ is answered."
You seem the be the only one who is saying "I'm right, you all are wrong".
I get Interpretation #1 and #2. #3, I don't get at all.
I am willing to presume that they are arguing in good faith, despite my growing suspicions to the contrary.With your "entitled to be wrong" comments, I no longer think you are debating in good faith.
Pretty much everyone in here is willing to accept "there are two or more interpretations, expect table variance until the FAQ is answered."
You seem the be the only one who is saying "I'm right, you all are wrong".
My position doesn't try to add words to the interpretation. People claiming that clothing (lower case 'C') somehow refers to only the clothing table. There is no suggestion or rule that says this. It literally only cares about clothing. Therefore, one needs to ask if an object is clothing. Swarmsuit says it is, therefore it is. Anything else is reading in something beyond the RAW. It's not a matter of interpretation, its matter of sticking to what the rules as they are written say. Hence, RAW.
I can't take the illusion argument seriously. I really can't.
Dimminsy, I didn't pick the Gauntlets of the Weaponmaster. I pick Backbreaker Mail. It also uses disguise self. Please use Backbreaker Mail to explain what part of it's abilities are illusionary. If you can, I'll accept your point of view that sleeves are also some kind of illusion effect.
I find that Backbreaker Mail is the perfect proof that an illusion aura and the disguise self requirement means absolutely nothing when it comes to the abilities.
So to answer the question I quoted from Anzyr, "No, I do not believe Illusion spells alter an object's real/physical form."
Ok, cause Sleeves of Many Garments explicitly changes form. So evidently these are either the illusions that can (you are discounting shadow spells here I note), or the items requirements was merely something chosen for its overall thematic value, not rules interactions. I personally go with the second interpretation myself.
Also graystone, has provided a much better item example. But really, ultimately you are reading to much into the spells for item creation. At absolute best, you can argue that Disguise Self is inappropriate with your rules citations. Not the Sleeves cannot produce a real change.
Backbreaker Mail is from Paizo's Inner Sea Combat. It uses transmutation as well as illusion magic.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
My position doesn't try to add words to the interpretation. Hence, RAW.
You are adding words. Just like the position on the Cracked Orange Ioun Stone that allows any spell from any spell list.
Wearer adds one cantrip or orison (determined when the stone is created) to his list of spells known or spells prepared. Price: 1,000 gp.
To get any spell from any list you must add "from any spell list" to this ability. Why? Because those words don't exist and without them you are limited to your class spell list. This is backed up by the recent FAQ on adding spells to your spell list. This has been the way all of Pathfinder and 3.5 handled extra spells (look at the feat Extra Spell in 3.5 one of the "Complete" books for another example of an ability that didn't say "from any spell list" and was interpreted to be from any spell list until a FAQ came along to clarify.)
You also wouldn't assert your logic on Enlarge Person. It says "Target one humanoid creature" so by this logic it is RAW that it works on anything that has the general shape of biped with two arms standing upright.
Thank you, Matthew! For future reference, is Archives of Nethys good enough as a Pathfinder/PFS source? It was sourcing a campaign book so I will assume the text is quoted from the book.
Backbreaker Mail uses Beast Shape I (Transmutation), Disguise Self (Illusion), and Summon Monster I (Conjuration). If the linked text is the full text of the item, then there is nothing wrong with the item. It is not using illusion magic to cause a transmutation effect. Instead of using the Beast Shape III spell (which explicitly allows constrict) they use a combination of spells for the effect of "grants its wearer the constrict ability (Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 298), dealing an amount of damage equal to 1d6 + the wearer’s Strength modifier." In all accounts this ability is much more limited than Beast Shape III, so it's an understandable "finagling" of spells for the desired effect.
This is not illusion magic causing a transmutation effect. It is transmutation magic (plus some others for flavor and to make the item cheaper imo) causing a transmutation effect. My point is not "any item using illusion magic cannot be transmuted (without outside means)." My point is any item that uses illusion magic cannot be transmuted. Much like an item that only uses abjuration magic should not be able to cause a conjuration effect (like Summon Monster).
I'm off to bed, so hopefully there will be a reply in the morning.
Again. this is why I cannot take the illusion argument seriously. You say illusions can't cause a change in form, but Sleeves explicitly *do*.
"When she removes the sleeves, her clothes revert to their original form."
So it clearly explicitly changes the originals form. This is beyond what you say illusions can do, but the item can do it.
@ James Risner: I am not adding words. The rules of Cracked Orange Ioun Stone are very clear.
"Wearer adds one cantrip or orison (determined when the stone is created) to his list of spells known or spells prepared. Price: 1,000 gp."
Is create water an orison? Yes. Then it can be added to spells known. You are reading in the phrase "from the casters list", where I am not reading in anything. It says cantrip or orison can be added to the list of spells known and take those words as they written there. You don't need to add "from any list" to get that interpretation. You need merely read the words written there. Here's the logic process:
Is the spell a cantrip or orison?
If yes, you may add it to spells known.
That is the RAW of the ioun stone. There is no words being added to reach my conclusion, nor any taken away. It is literally only the rule as written. (Note that with the changes to spells known this doesn't mean much since you won't be able to cast it.)
I also addressed humanoid creature upthread. Humanoid is not the same as humanoid creature.
"When she removes the sleeves, her clothes revert to their original form."
So it clearly explicitly changes the originals form. This is beyond what you say illusions can do, but the item can do it.
Googling "form"... "Form is the shape, visual appearance, constitution or configuration of an object."
You'll note that visual appearance would naturally change along with shape and literally all of those words would conform to an actual change right? The illusion argument is just blatantly ignoring the context and adding words that would need to be there like those in Hat of Disguise, noting that the transformation is illusory.
So you put the sleeves on and your clothing transforms. What happens to the sleeves? Do they remain visible? Does this mean you're now wearing a guard's uniform with translucent cloth tubes on your arms? Would this not hamper the usage of this item for anything other than purely mechanical uses like cold weather gear or the swarmsuit?
How does the new clothing remain "always clean and mended unless she specifically designates otherwise"? Is there additional magic protecting them from dirt and damage beyond the initial transformation? Or would not the more obvious answer be that they are an illusion and thus "always [appear] clean and mended"?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gate Guard Bob: "Hold up there son, we need to check you out and make sure you're one of us and not one of them Pathfinder types trying to sneak into our lord's manor."
Sleeves PC: "Uh, sure. You can clearly see I'm wearing one of your red and black uniforms. All hail House Thrune!"
Gate Guard Bob: "Yeah, yeah. Joe, you know the drill"
Gate Guard Joe nods.
Gate Guard Joe: "Sure do, Bob."
Gate Guard Joe leans down filling his hand with a large chunk of mud from the recent rains here in Westcrown.
Gate Guard Joe: "Hold still, fellow guardsman. No funny command words for any magic items you might be wearing."
Gate Guard Joe takes and rubs the mud all over Sleeves PC's uniform, eyes widening as it still continues to appear completely clean.
Gate Guards (both): "He's a Pathfinder wearing them blasted sleeves! GET HIM!"
Gate Guards (both): "He's a Pathfinder wearing them blasted sleeves! GET HIM!"
So you have a bunch of dirty guards running around and one clean one? One does not belong. lol.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
You don't need to add "from any list" to get that interpretation
You absolutely do, and there is a FAQ that agrees with me.
This is where you are adding words based on your interpretation of RAW.
Just the same as you adding words to the Cracked Orange Ioun Stone, you are adding words to the Sleeves of Many Garments such as "and you gain the mechanical benefits of the illusion taken".
|
|
I think a more important question is:
How does a male PC or NPC feel when the only clothing he is wearing is that granted by sleeves of many garments?
I imagine it's quite liberating if you disbelieve your own illusion (and why wouldn't you?)
So, yeah... that guy with the creepy expression in the Rusty Dragon that's walking funny? Sleeves of many garments...
|
|
Just some food for thought:
The Illusion that Sleeves of Many Garments supposedly create is a Glammer, correct? If so, then it would feel identical to if you were wearing whatever clothing you transformed your clothes into, including the correct temperature, texture, and weight wearing that outfit would produce, because it is a glammer.
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.
Therefor, could it be possible that wearing cold-weather gear via sleeves you would gain the bonuses because it is still keeping you warm like the actual outfit despite being an illusion? Normally, I'd say no, because most of the time you'd get a saving throw, but with the sleeves, your character doesn't get a save and has no reason to believe it isn't real [if he doesn't try to identify its aura at least, 'cause then he could believe it were Transmutation without it being such], so you would believe you are warm.
|
|
Just some food for thought:
The Illusion that Sleeves of Many Garments supposedly create is a Glammer, correct? If so, then it would feel identical to if you were wearing whatever clothing you transformed your clothes into, including the correct temperature, texture, and weight wearing that outfit would produce, because it is a glammer.
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.Therefor, could it be possible that wearing cold-weather gear via sleeves you would gain the bonuses because it is still keeping you warm like the actual outfit despite being an illusion? Normally, I'd say no, because most of the time you'd get a saving throw, but with the sleeves, your character doesn't get a save and has no reason to believe it isn't real [if he doesn't try to identify its aura at least, 'cause then he could believe it were Transmutation without it being such], so you would believe you are warm.
Actually, that would be even worse. You would feel warm and believe yourself to be warm even as your body was freezing to death. So you would take the damage, but wouldn't notice it, all you would notice is that you were starting to feel a little tired...
darn, ninjaed
|
|
Formian Mo has just purchased sleeves of many garments and arrives wearing a stylish new suit. He salutes Formian Larry.
Formian Mo: Greetings fellow formian, what do you think of my new clothes?
Formian Larry: Very nice! Even the Taldan nobles living up above us in Oppara would be impressed!
Formian Mo: I got these on a steep discount from a Pathfinder who was trying to sneak into a manor and got caught. They're sleeves of many garments! They feel so soft and silky too. Go ahead, feel it for yourself!
Formian Larry: Sleeves of many garments, you say? I've heard those are simply illusions and not actually real clothes.
Formian Larry leans closer and attempts a Will save upon interacting with Mo's jacket. He succeeds.
Formian Mo: What?!? Wait!! Son of a---!! Where did my clothes go? BLESSED KHEPRI, I'M COMPLETELY NAKED!!!
Formian Mo flees the hive, buck naked, to many "oh's", "ooh's" and "ah's" from his fellow formian brethren.
Let's muddy the waters a little more…
Clothing (described as "garments")
Non-magical (but requires the user to possess a specific Supernatural ability to activate them)
Seems to be based on sight, so whether the vestments themselves are an illusion should be irrelevant. (note the word "viewer" in the effect description)
So, could the Sleeves be used to create Authoritative Vestments? Why or why not?
It doesn't really muddy the water further; based on a purely rules approach, as opposed to a balance one, whatever answer applies to Swarmsuit will also apply to Authoritative Vestments.
Your illusion argument, though, doesn't hold water, as a GM can easily say "no, you can't channel energy through an illusion".
I can clearly see a desire by the designers to have a cheap item that let's people always be dressed for any social occasion with "real" clothes. I don't see an intention to make a SoMG the ultimate survival gear.
I just hope we get a clarification, as opposed to a ban from PFS.
Thank you, Matthew! For future reference, is Archives of Nethys good enough as a Pathfinder/PFS source? It was sourcing a campaign book so I will assume the text is quoted from the book.
Backbreaker Mail uses Beast Shape I (Transmutation), Disguise Self (Illusion), and Summon Monster I (Conjuration). If the linked text is the full text of the item, then there is nothing wrong with the item. It is not using illusion magic to cause a transmutation effect. Instead of using the Beast Shape III spell (which explicitly allows constrict) they use a combination of spells for the effect of "grants its wearer the constrict ability (Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 298), dealing an amount of damage equal to 1d6 + the wearer’s Strength modifier." In all accounts this ability is much more limited than Beast Shape III, so it's an understandable "finagling" of spells for the desired effect.
This is not illusion magic causing a transmutation effect. It is transmutation magic (plus some others for flavor and to make the item cheaper imo) causing a transmutation effect. My point is not "any item using illusion magic cannot be transmuted (without outside means)." My point is any item that uses illusion magic cannot be transmuted. Much like an item that only uses abjuration magic should not be able to cause a conjuration effect (like Summon Monster).
I'm off to bed, so hopefully there will be a reply in the morning.
I think you missed MY point. Look at the item. Now, look at the spells required and tell me what part of the items effect is illusionary. Your point is "any item that only uses illusion magic cannot be transmuted". Part of that argument would have to be that having it be illusionary school MUST make the effect illusionary. So again, please point out what part of the backbreaker mail is illusionary. If you can't, your whole argument falls apart (illusion = power MUST be illusionary).
Also, I take any rules text that actually says what you've posted. So far, I haven't seen any text say "any item that only uses illusion magic cannot be transmuted" but if there is please post and I'll agree you're right.
|
|
....Your illustration does highlight a valid concern with the "it's an illusion" interpretation. It's a reasonable assumption the designers don't want a WILL save every time a person using a SoMG is touched. I see this as a meta-game concern by the designers and may be why they wrote the description to imply a physical change.
Except that Glamored armor uses the same spell, is clearly an illusion and still doesn't grant a will save (explicitly states that the only way to see through it is true sight.)
|
|
So, what kind of mechanical bonus/effect is this supposed to create?
I am seeing what ranges between "could be useful" to "diddly squat"
Nearly useless. It is, by definition, one of the weakest possible reusable magic items. Weaker than something with an at will cantrip power. That's why it is 200 gold.
It lets your clothes look like what you want them to. So your cleric of Iomede who always wants to look like she is wearing her cassock can look like she wants to whether she is wearing hot weather gear, cold weather gear, a bikini, whatever.
It also lets you change into anyones uniform at will (though as people said, there is a way to detect that.)
It is great at parties, you need never worry about spilling your drink again.
I made this item for RPG Superstar 2010. At the time I didn't realize that sleeves of many garments existed.
POLYTOGGERY
Aura moderate conjuration; CL 9th
Slot body; Price 2,000 gp; Weight (varies)
DESCRIPTION
Polytoggery usually appear to be a normal peasant’s outfit complete with a loose shirt, baggy breeches, and cloth wrappings for shoes. The various garments are however tailored with numerous nondimensional spaces concealed in the folds and tucks of the fabric. Folded within these spaces are components of other outfits allowing the wearer, with one minute of pulling and tucking, to transform the vestments into any set of clothing on Table 6-9. Anything from simple cleric’s vestments to a cold-weather outfit or even a gem encrusted royal outfit is possible, but a vast array ceases to function if the wearer loses possession of any components (i.e. boots, hats, gems etc).
No matter what form polytoggery takes it only weighs 5 lbs. more than the current outfit it is transformed into. Additionally, the wearer can carry up to 4 cubic feet or 40 lbs. of equipment in the garment without incurring any additional encumbrance. It requires a move action to retrieve a specific item from within the folds.
CONSTRUCTION
Requirements Craft Wonderous Item, secret chest; creator must have 1 rank in the Craft (clothing) skill; Cost 1,000 gp
You don't need to add "from any list" to get that interpretationYou absolutely do, and there is a FAQ that agrees with me.
This is where you are adding words based on your interpretation of RAW.
Just the same as you adding words to the Cracked Orange Ioun Stone, you are adding words to the Sleeves of Many Garments such as "and you gain the mechanical benefits of the illusion taken".
The FAQ actually disagrees with you. It allows you to add spells to your spells known, it just doesn't let you cast spells that aren't on your spell list even if they are on your spells known list. Unless its from a class feature, then adding to your spells known also adds to your spell list. I suspect this will be changed as the thread was full of unintended consequences and little details that ruling would mess up, but even with the FAQ as it is now, Cracked Orange Ioun Stone will in fact let you add any orison or cantrip to your spells known.
Also, I don't think you understanding what "adding" words means. I added no words to reach my conclusion. Literally 0. Which is important.
|
|
I forgot to mention that I actually GM'd an oracle who had the blackened arms curse. She used these to hide her condition. When the party encountered a swarm, she did not try and make a swarm suit. In fact, she didn't try to elicit any bonuses from the items as I recall. I guess my point here is that I think some people buy it for the fluff.So, what kind of mechanical bonus/effect is this supposed to create?
I am seeing what ranges between "could be useful" to "diddly squat"
You can do that with real clothes. Real clothes, that cost less, and give real bonuses.
There is even a thing known as a "Disguise Kit", and Tear-Away Clothing, that allows you to quickly change outfits.