Is the effect from Sleeves of Many Garments illusory or transmutive?


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 256 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Technically, it is RAW, just not relevant RAW. It determines things like the school of magic that registers with detect magic, and the power of such an aura, as well as the difficulty in crafting said item.

However, it has nothing to do with the item's actual in-game effect.


Im still wondering how something that form A (singular) set of clothing be able to make something that is MANY layers of clothing.
i get this sleev can make any outfit and even some armor, but it does state RAW it does a single set of clothing and many layers is not a single set of clothing.

Im of the mind adventuring gear is just equipment and not considered clothing.
a swarm suit reminds me heavily of a bee keeper suit and u wouldnt call that clothing even though it is many layers of fabric and a hat with a long veil over it (sound familiar?).

You tell someone go put one A set of clothing and they come out wearing 4 pants and 6 shirts plus a hat with a veil on it....is that person wearing A set of clothing?


Ravingdork wrote:
However, it has nothing to do with the item's actual in-game effect.

Do you have a citation for that?

And for the record, nobody has said the spell determines the item's "effect". The spell determines the aura (RAW) and the spell tells us what school(s) of magic the item is associated with (RAW). If normative behavior for spell/aura of an item is that there is no cross-purposing, then the spell/aura is, in fact, relevant to interpreting the intent behind the item in this case.

The only way this information is irrelevant is if there is no correlation between spells and purpose. The list of items makes it abundantly clear that there is a correlation. The fact that there are so few outliers (even if we consider those in violation of RAW) actually proves the correlation.

Shadow Lodge

What happens when I have a ticket stub in one of my pockets and I use the sleeves to transform my clothes into an item without pockets?

Is my ticket stub destroyed?

Because it was for a very important concert I want to remember forever.

There's many more important questions to answer here people! I want to know what happens from the illusion camp and the transformation camp! Your answer will decide how this is "run RAW" here in my house!


ryric wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Am I the only one that ever gets confused and hit the "favorite" button before I hit the FAQ button because the FAQ text is literally attached to the favorite button?
No I make that mistake as well. Also FAQed.

What browser y'all using? Chrome seems to have a pretty clean separation for me.

Edit: I'd go with illusion but can see why some would go with transmutation and offer no negative judgments upon them. The rational reasons and counter-arguments have already been made (along with squalling inanity) and I don't feel the need to repeat them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've read both threads. It's pretty heated. I think there is text to support each side's interpretation, and I'm disappointed to see some suggesting that this isn't the case and their interpretation is the purely, solely correct interpretation.

I would come at this from another angle. I don't care about RAW or RAI or who has the best interpretation in this thread. I care about what I anticipate Paizo's response will be. That is how I would like to run my games. I try to guess what Paizo might say, and unapologetically enforce that, whether players whine or not. Then, I hope that when Paizo gets around to issuing a verdict, it dovetails with what I guessed. If it doesn't, I'm still unapologetic, because guesswork about Paizo's decisions is my favored methodology for resolving these issues, and I don't like the alternatives.

So, here is what I think Paizo will do:


  • Issue a FAQ with this text: Change "transform her current garments into any other non-magical set of clothing" to the following: "transform her current garments into any other non-magical set of clothing as listed on the Clothing/Outfits table."

I don't imagine them giving any other clarification. I think their only guiding motivation is prevent the magic item from being used in a wide-open anything goes fashion that would be out of line with its cost.

Again, whether this ruling from Paizo would be in line with the previous text, or would be based off a RAW or RAI interpretation, is irrelevant to me. I don't think they care. I don't think they feel limited like that. I think they are willing to look at their own text and say, "We don't care what we wrote, we're going to FAQ it in a completely new way whether people like it or not." I also think they don't care about the illusion/transformation argument, and will leave all of you hanging.

Because I believe this, I run my games this way. Because I'm a PFS GM, I run PFS this way. Some have suggested they would write letters of complaint to Paizo for any GM that dared to block the swarm suit. I'd suggest that if anyone really feels that way, I'm running games in a couple of weeks -- contact me and come down, so I can tell you "no" and you can write your letter. It doesn't matter to me and certainly wouldn't intimidate me into complying with your play style -- it's not like being a PFS GM is a salaried position that anyone would miss. At my table, you're stuck with this, until Paizo says otherwise.

In absence of any other information, this is my best guess about how to rule it. In my opinion, with no other information, nothing better can be done. I'm not swayed by any of the arguments in these threads. They're all equally bad.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, I must say, I am certainly at the point where I could care less if the Sleeves produce a Swarmsuit, or not.

Knowing if the Sleeves are transmutive, or illusionary, is something that needs to established though.

If a PC wearing the Sleeves, is wearing a Cold Weather Outfit, and uses the Sleeves to transform it into a Hot Weather Outfit, then we must have a way to know which Outfit is providing a benefit.

So, just as I said before, this discussion is likely to have better results, if we all can just pretend the Swarmsuit doesn't exist.

Seriously, remove it from the equation. Clear it from your mind.

Do your opinions change?


Not particularly.

Honestly, hot weather gear vs. cold weather gear seems more likely to matter than a swarm suit in the games I end up playing.


N N 959 wrote:
I never said that there was a direct correlation. You're marching out strawmen, yet again. Nor does there have to be a "direct" correlation for my point to be valid.

You want to use said correlation as context for the actual items text. For that to be valid, there would HAVE to be a direct correlation. You can't have it both ways. Either the correlation is direct and you can draw a conclusion from said correlation or you can't. You can't have it both ways.

N N 959 wrote:
The spell isn't "scientific", the aura is scientific. By RAW, the aura is derived from the spell, the aura is not chosen.

For PC's yes. For Paizo, no.

N N 959 wrote:
And for the spell/aura to be inconclusive, you have to show me a number of spells whose function has absolutely nothing to do with the item. You haven't done it. The best you can manage is examples where the item ignores RAW on the aura. Which does nothing for you because disguise self is, in fact, an illusion spell.

I've done so many times with many items but you ignore them. But I'll use some from TGMaxMaxer's list so we aren't going over the same items. Any ONE of which fits the bill. I'm not sure why you need 'a number' of them, but here they are.

Distance weapons use Clairaudience/clairvoyance?
Anchoring weapons use Levitate?
Bane weapons use Summon Monster?
Heartseeker uses Deathknell?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Speaking of odd requirements:

Does anyone notice that the Bull Strength spell, requires actual Bullsh*t, as a material spell component?

Silver Crusade

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Speaking of odd requirements:

Does anyone notice that the Bull Strength spell, requires actual Bullsh*t, as a material spell component?

I think I'll stick wit the hairs. I can't imagine a caster carrying around bovine feces in his spell component pouch would smell very good.

Also, all the more reason to play a sorcerer. Eschew Materials FTW, amirite?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Speaking of odd requirements:

Does anyone notice that the Bull Strength spell, requires actual Bullsh*t, as a material spell component?

I think I'll stick wit the hairs. I can't imagine a caster carrying around bovine feces in his spell component pouch would smell very good.

Also, all the more reason to play a sorcerer. Eschew Materials FTW, amirite?

Indeed.

It does suggest something about magic.

If actual BS is used to make one stronger, is it really making you stronger?

Silver Crusade

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Speaking of odd requirements:

Does anyone notice that the Bull Strength spell, requires actual Bullsh*t, as a material spell component?

I think I'll stick wit the hairs. I can't imagine a caster carrying around bovine feces in his spell component pouch would smell very good.

Also, all the more reason to play a sorcerer. Eschew Materials FTW, amirite?

Indeed.

It does suggest something about magic.

If actual BS is used to make one stronger, is it really making you stronger?

I'm fairly convinced magic is all about the Placeo effect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
In plain English, the combination of the words in descriptions is indicative of an actual transformation. Especially, since it does not say the transformation only applies to it's appearance. If it was to only apply to appearance, it would need language saying so. Language that is does not have, that Hat of Disguise *DOES* have. So yes I repeat the same points, because they are correct. It's hard to make another argument for 2+2=4 other then that if you add 2 and 2 together, you get 4.

No that is your assertion. Once again you are begging the question. All of the words in plain English can refer to a change of appearance. It does not have to specifically say that it applies only to appearance because the words used can mean that. When a word or words have more than one possible meaning we must turn to context to determine which definition applies.

So is there anything in the context that would suggest the words "transform" and "form" are referring to just appearance? Why, yes there is. The fact that it relies on an illusion spell for the effect would suggest that is how they are using those words.

Is there anything in the context that prohibits those to words being used to mean a change of appearance. Nope, there sure isn't.

Since there is nothing contextually to support your insistence on the use of "transform" to mean a physical change you attempt to argue that since they left out language to the contrary in the sleeves but had included it in the Hat of Disguise that this proves the sleeves make a physical change. But your conclusion doesn't follow necessarily from your premises. There could be alternative explanations for why the language is missing. Maybe it was an oversight when designing the sleeves. Maybe for the hat they were just describing what it did and the additional wording was simply a coincidental part of that description. So your only argument proves nothing and certainly does nothing to counter the arguments to the contrary.

Your argument that one can't prove 2 + 2 equals 4 other than just asserting it is a false analogy because 4 is the only possible definition of 2 + 2 but the words in question can have different definitions. What you are doing is like debating x + y = 4. You claim that x and y both MUST be 2 because that is the only reasonable way to look at it while everyone else keeps telling you x could be 1 and y could be 3 or X could be 0 and y could be 4 and you respond over and over that x and y must both be 2 simply because 2 + 2 = 4.

So in the end you committed two different logical fallacies in a single post arguing that yours is the only rational way to interpret the text.

Shadow Lodge

i think 2+2= fish o.o aannyway lol its fun to read the comments here, i mean i dont see the big problem everyone see's it differntly and as such its going to be one or the other in differnt groups.so cant we all just agree on differnces between tables? ^^ i mean there are good agruments for both sides and it will keep boiling down to what the other actually wants and will never recede their posistion until a offical statment is posted.

so thats all i got to say, so you may go back to agueing one way or the other now ^^ thank you for reading :)

Paizo Glitterati Robot

Removed quite a few back and forth posts. Focus on discussing the content of the thread, rather than others in it. Personal jabs add nothing to the conversation.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Goodness, I almost thought this was locked.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Goodness, I almost thought this was locked.

No no, just need to keep it civil so they can watch us tear one another apart in peace.


Already FAQ'd, just dotting waiting for official word... hopefully.


Raphael Valen wrote:
i just hope this gets a offical statment eventually, would be nice to finally know the truth lol

Honestly, I'm not sure it does serve my personal interests as a PFS player to have the rule resolved.

As it stands, I have a compelling argument to bring to the table for using the Sleeves to make a Swarmsuit, and the chances that a random PFSDM are keeping abreast of the forums and will have read the good counter-arguments is low.

In the rare cases where both the tactical trick and the workaround are both shot down, no character build of mine will be destroyed, and I still might be able to use the trick at a different table. I see this as a neat trick, but I won't be basing any character builds on it. And honestly, even if they do rule that the Sleeves' are only good for the illusion of always seeming impeccably dressed, they are worth the money.

Meanwhile, I HATE, HATE, HATE table variation, but if Paizo doesn't want to provide referees with clear and timely guidelines, then they deserve to be taken advantage of by rules-lawyering jerks like me. I've begged for timely, authoritative rulings. They want me to start arguments at the table, but I'd MUCH rather keep my arguments on the forums and not disrupt real game time.

If there is a definitive ruling, it might go my way, which would be nice, but it might not. And until there is a definitive ruling against my using the Sleeves the way I want, I can still keep getting away with it.

Grand Lodge

FAQing this. I'm inclined to lean towards yes.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Wow. I don't think any of my threads have ever had 90 FAQ clicks before. This must be a much greater deal to more people than I thought.


I think people are FAQing more over the question of whether the spell/aura doesn't have to have anything to do with the effect. But I could be wrong, 'cause that's why I FAQ'd.


Another example of inexplicable aura-effect pairing.

Swordmaster's Blindfold is made with blindness (necromancy [curse]) and locate weakness (divination), but detects as moderate transmutation.

I don't even know where to begin following that train of thought.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, obviously, this item should cost 1000gp, and give you a -4 to Diplomacy.

Oh, and of course, no benefit.


FAQ:"The effects are illusion (glamer) like the glamered weapon and armor properties. This means they can’t be disbelieved like a figment could, but they do not actually physically change the clothes. The transformation changes only the appearance, including the feel, smell, and other sensory aspects."
Well, now we know.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Answered.

Now I wasted 200gp.


If you want to impress people with your fancy clothes at parties, it's much cheaper to buy this than multiple 200gp Royal Outfits. So for the fashion conscious, it's still way underpriced. (Not so much from the viewpoint of an adventurer, though.)

Paizo Employee Official Rules Response

5 people marked this as a favorite.

FAQ:

FAQ wrote:

Sleeves of Many Garments: Are the effects of sleeves of many garments illusion or transmutation?

The effects are illusion (glamer) like the glamered weapon and armor properties. This means they can’t be disbelieved like a figment could, but they do not actually physically change the clothes. The transformation changes only the appearance, including the feel, smell, and other sensory aspects.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Answered.

Now I wasted 200gp.

Same here, at least it wasn't more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, now I can cross this off every character that had them.


Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

FAQ:

FAQ wrote:

Sleeves of Many Garments: Are the effects of sleeves of many garments illusion or transmutation?

The effects are illusion (glamer) like the glamered weapon and armor properties. This means they can’t be disbelieved like a figment could, but they do not actually physically change the clothes. The transformation changes only the appearance, including the feel, smell, and other sensory aspects.

Hali-fricken-lua!

Do you guys know how many hours of people's lives you have saved answering this simple question?

I am now going to buy one of your products to support a company that provides me with support for purchasing their products.

Thank you.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for the FAQ!

It's still a bargain. It's a fantastic item even if it can't duplicate a swarmsuit or some other silliness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:

Thanks for the FAQ!

It's still a bargain. It's a fantastic item even if it can't duplicate a swarmsuit or some other silliness.

Really? It literally does nothing. No bonus to disguise, nothing. At best, you might get a circumstance bonus if you bribe your DM with pizza.


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

Thanks for the FAQ!

It's still a bargain. It's a fantastic item even if it can't duplicate a swarmsuit or some other silliness.

Really? It literally does nothing. No bonus to disguise, nothing. At best, you might get a circumstance bonus if you bribe your DM with pizza.

Does everything need to have a fixed numerical effect? By that logic, the entire silent image chain of spells is worthless.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

What benefit does thing even provide anymore?

It has no purpose.

Why not just spend money on any actual Outfit, that provides an actual bonus?

Hell, even from a flavor standpoint, an actual Outfit does the same dang thing.

It is now utterly pointless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

What benefit does thing even provide anymore?

It has no purpose.

Why not just spend money on any actual Outfit, that provides an actual bonus?

Hell, even from a flavor standpoint, an actual Outfit does the same dang thing.

It is now utterly pointless.

Clothing weight?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Wow. Tabletop gaming really has changed, hasn't it?

If you'll excuse me, I need a drink. : (

101 to 150 of 256 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Is the effect from Sleeves of Many Garments illusory or transmutive? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.