| 99 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems clear to me it's not illusionary. Sometimes the 'best fit' spell for creation isn't that good of a fit.
"The wearer of these sleeves can, when she slips them on, choose to transform her current garments into any other non-magical set of clothing. These new clothes fit her perfectly and are always clean and mended unless she specifically designates otherwise."
Why would it say transform if it was an illusion? It could say 'take on the appearance' instead.
Why say the clothes fit her perfectly? Clean? Mended? These are all things that don't need to be said for an illusion. Now if it said 'These new clothes APPEAR TO fit her perfectly and are always LOOK clean and mended', I could see a question.
|
It seems clear to me it's not illusionary. Sometimes the 'best fit' spell for creation isn't that good of a fit.
"The wearer of these sleeves can, when she slips them on, choose to transform her current garments into any other non-magical set of clothing. These new clothes fit her perfectly and are always clean and mended unless she specifically designates otherwise."
Why would it say transform if it was an illusion? It could say 'take on the appearance' instead.
Why say the clothes fit her perfectly? Clean? Mended? These are all things that don't need to be said for an illusion. Now if it said 'These new clothes APPEAR TO fit her perfectly and are always LOOK clean and mended', I could see a question.
Because some times Paizo's word count editor edits a little too much?
Because some times authors slip up and don't think about their word choice?| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... or an illusion/shadow effect which could be a little column a / a little column b?
Illusion effects can absolutely be 'real' (see every single shadow conjuration spell).
It doesn't actually matter if the effect is illusory or transmutive. All that matters is if they are real enough to behave as normal physical clothing.
N N 959, I see nothing in the item entry that suggests in any way that it produces an illusionary effect. The only thing You can point to is the spell you're required to have to make the item. As far as I know, there is no rule relating the ability produced with the perquisite spells needed.
Brawling requires bull's strength and doesn't increase strength...
As far as illusion aura item, I'll point you to the Backbreaker Mail. Please point put what part of it's power is illusionary since it has an illusion aura and requires you know disguise self to make. I think this item proves nicely that an illusion aura is meaningless in figuring out if the effect is illusionary.
|
|
Illusion effects can absolutely be 'real' (see every single shadow conjuration spell).
It doesn't actually matter if the effect is illusory or transmutive. All that matters is if they are real enough to behave as normal physical clothing.
Such as the Cold Weather Outfit, granting a +5 circumstance bonus on Fortitude saving throws against exposure to cold weather?
Such as the Cold Weather Outfit, granting a +5 circumstance bonus on Fortitude saving throws against exposure to cold weather?Illusion effects can absolutely be 'real' (see every single shadow conjuration spell).
It doesn't actually matter if the effect is illusory or transmutive. All that matters is if they are real enough to behave as normal physical clothing.
Sure, why not?
That's an equipment bonus granted by normal, mundane clothing. It's certainly less complicated than most of the things any other "semi-real" illusions can create.
This is hardly a game breaker.
Now we are arguing this issue in two threads at the same time? What a mess!
I would really like to see this answered in the context of telling the players that the associated school of magic forms the box around which the item operates. IOW, can we rely on the "aura" to help us interpret the boundaries on the item?
I agree with this, with the required caveat that if the text of an item says it can do more, then it can obviously do more.
Sleeves of Many Garments itself is not a frequently asked question. Also, even if it was, there are over a dozen questions that are asked more frequently and have a larger impact on the game that need addressing long before this.
Now, if an FAQ answer to this particular question is more general and provides direction, then I'd like to see it.
The Disguise Self may be what allows for the appearance of the trophies on the amor, despite the wearer not having earned any trophies, because its not clear if the armor is inherently adorned with trophies or the wearers are adorning the armor (the description suggests those were the armor are putting trophies on it).
Really? To you that sounds like an illusion... You read things MUCH differently than I then. I see 0% of any indication of any illusion in the entire description.
You were charged with finding an illusion-only aura item that clearly performs a transmutative function. You didn't do it.
Really? I thought I did... And then you throw a hissy fit and said it didn't count cuz... I don't know, maybe it didn't agree with your point of view? I'll point it out again. Greater Hat of Disguise. And the next time you ignore it, I'll point to it again until you stop asking for what's already been given. [Note that I did so in the other Sleeves of Many Garments thread, but N N 959 knows that]
Greater Hat of Disguise.
Greater Hat of Disguise.
Greater Hat of Disguise.
Say it a few time with me so you'll remember it. :P
|
It seems clear to me it's not illusionary. Sometimes the 'best fit' spell for creation isn't that good of a fit.
"The wearer of these sleeves can, when she slips them on, choose to transform her current garments into any other non-magical set of clothing. These new clothes fit her perfectly and are always clean and mended unless she specifically designates otherwise."
Why would it say transform if it was an illusion? It could say 'take on the appearance' instead.
Why say the clothes fit her perfectly? Clean? Mended? These are all things that don't need to be said for an illusion. Now if it said 'These new clothes APPEAR TO fit her perfectly and are always LOOK clean and mended', I could see a question.
Read the full phrase:
"These new clothes fit her perfectly and are always clean and mended unless she specifically designates otherwise. "It specify that, by default, the garment fit perfectly and are clean and mended, unless the wearer decide differently. I.e. he can choose to have a set badly fitting, dirty rags.
So it is not proof of a transmutation effect, it is simply a way to specify that the wearer can decide the secondary aspects of the garments.
It seems clear to me it's not illusionary. Sometimes the 'best fit' spell for creation isn't that good of a fit.
"The wearer of these sleeves can, when she slips them on, choose to transform her current garments into any other non-magical set of clothing. These new clothes fit her perfectly and are always clean and mended unless she specifically designates otherwise."
Why would it say transform if it was an illusion? It could say 'take on the appearance' instead.
Why say the clothes fit her perfectly? Clean? Mended? These are all things that don't need to be said for an illusion. Now if it said 'These new clothes APPEAR TO fit her perfectly and are always LOOK clean and mended', I could see a question.
Read the full phrase:
"These new clothes fit her perfectly and are always clean and mended unless she specifically designates otherwise. "It specify that, by default, the garment fit perfectly and are clean and mended, unless the wearer decide differently. I.e. he can choose to have a set badly fitting, dirty rags.
So it is not proof of a transmutation effect, it is simply a way to specify that the wearer can decide the secondary aspects of the garments.
I clearly explained how it read to me. [and I DID read the full phrase, thank you very much] No matter how you parse it, illusionary clothes would only APPEAR to fit or APPEAR to be clean. As I said, if these are truly meant to be illusionary, it was VERY poorly worded. Now I they where meant to be a transformation, I find it quite well worded. I'm going with the one I don't have to read anything into to get it to work naturally for me. And that's NOT with an illusion effect...
This thread is primarily for clean, organized FAQing of the question. Please go to this thread for related discussion.
Seriously, you guys have already clogged one thread up.
|
|
I clearly explained how it read to me. [and I DID read the full phrase, thank you very much] No matter how you parse it, illusionary clothes would only APPEAR to fit or APPEAR to be clean. As I said, if these are truly meant to be illusionary, it was VERY poorly worded. Now I they where meant to be a transformation, I find it quite well worded. I'm going with the one I don't have to read anything into to get it to work naturally for me. And that's NOT with an illusion effect...It seems clear to me it's not illusionary. Sometimes the 'best fit' spell for creation isn't that good of a fit.
"The wearer of these sleeves can, when she slips them on, choose to transform her current garments into any other non-magical set of clothing. These new clothes fit her perfectly and are always clean and mended unless she specifically designates otherwise."
Why would it say transform if it was an illusion? It could say 'take on the appearance' instead.
Why say the clothes fit her perfectly? Clean? Mended? These are all things that don't need to be said for an illusion. Now if it said 'These new clothes APPEAR TO fit her perfectly and are always LOOK clean and mended', I could see a question.
Read the full phrase:
"These new clothes fit her perfectly and are always clean and mended unless she specifically designates otherwise. "It specify that, by default, the garment fit perfectly and are clean and mended, unless the wearer decide differently. I.e. he can choose to have a set badly fitting, dirty rags.
So it is not proof of a transmutation effect, it is simply a way to specify that the wearer can decide the secondary aspects of the garments.
You read it but choose not to cite the second part. To me it seem very relevant. The phrase don't support it being a transmutation effect, nor being a illusory effect. It simply state what is the appearance of the garment.
Seriously, you guys have already clogged one thread up.
This thread is primarily for clean, organized FAQing of the question. Please go to this thread for related discussion.
Plenty of space in the forum.
I already explained in the other thread, the GHoD violates RAW and is unequivocally an error.
The aura is determined by the highest prerequisite spell. In this case Alter Self is transmutative, not illusion. So the item does not have an illusion aura any more than a longsword would do 2d12 if it was printed in a module.Are you really refusing to acknowledge this?
"Not all items adhere to these formulas." The rules themselves say that they don't have to be followed. What you read is rules for players/GM for making item, NOT something Paizo has to follow.
And even if it was, there is no proof that the aura/spell has a direct effect on the items abilities. So I AM refusing to acknowledge that it's an error. There are people that CAN say that, but you aren't one of them. So... Greater Hat of Disguise is my answer since your 'RAW' isn't unequivocally for the people that made the item.
You read it but choose not to cite the second part. To me it seem very relevant. The phrase don't support it being a transmutation effect, nor being a illusory effect. It simply state what is the appearance of the garment.
I honest don't understand why. The fact that you can make it NOT fit is as much proof as it fitting that it's a transformation. In neither case does it say APPEAR. Taken in whole or in part, it reads 100% transformation to me. I honestly don't see how it can be read both ways unless you're looking for a way to MAKE it illusion. As I said above "if these are truly meant to be illusionary, it was VERY poorly worded. Now I they where meant to be a transformation, I find it quite well worded."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's pure nonsense to say "it doesn't say appear so it could be illusionary". It does however say "transform" "new clothes" and "original form". And we should go by what it does say. And what it says is that transforms into actual new clothes. Words matter.
Look once at the Armband of the Golden Serpent. Spell is spectral hand (necromancy) and the aura is moderate abjuration. I can keep this up, but I'm not going to. I've already found two and you still have no rule to back you up.
The quote is in the magic creation section. It's been said many times (3.5 and pathfinder) that there are items you can't reverse engineer because that don't have listed powers or don't follow the rules. The magic generation rules are for us to use, but aren't a requirement for Paizo.
Also look at Bronze Sentinel, Backbreaker Mail, Falcon Crown and Mythopoeic Sphinx that don't follow the rule (highest level spell(s) determine aura. There are piles of items that don't fit neatly into the 'book' rule for PC item generation listed in the PRD.
So I've got 6 items that don't fit your 1+1=2 rules for magic items. Should I continue? I can but 6 from at least 3 different sources is a bit more than "Zip. Nada. Zilch." And as stated before, I don't care one whit for your only using the PRD. This is a rules forum, not a PRD forum.
|
im going to have to agree with the folks saying it transforms the actual clothing and not being a illusion, to me thats the only way i can read it, i've never put faith in those requirments to craft and the headline thing, only the price to buy it is the part to pay attention on those, cuase what the item actually says out weigh the other stuff, at least in my opinion ^^
|
|
well truth be told i aint going to run around looking through all the books trying to find examples cuase in the end someone is just going to either ignore that or find prove in th opposite direction and it just goes on and on and nothing is ever solved, so until official statement its just my personal opinion from past experience that the SOMG physically changes the wearers clothes ^^
You were saying?
Dimminsy said it well, They don't follow the rules, which is my point. Those rules are for PC's, Paizo doesn't have to follow them. You'll also find 3 ioun stones not match too. I believe the aura matches the effect and not the spell.
As to the "specific trumps general" argument, these items are contradicting how item auras are detected with Detect Magic. So this whole debate about the item's aura might be moot since Detect Magic would be picking up the highest level spell rather than the item's description aura. I'm sure though the description aura should match what Detect Magic would detect.
I think that some items just have different abilities than the spells used, so the aura matches the actual effect and not the spell. For instance Gamboge Nodule makes you immune to poison, so moderate transmutation sounds right. However the closest spell is neutralize poison, a conjuration (healing) spell. Sometimes what makes sense doesn't mesh with the rules.
On the sleeves: I think this is much like the Gamboge Nodule. They wanted a low level, cheap item so they want a 1st level spell. The only one close is disguise self. The 'mistake' was following the rules and matching the aura to the spell instead of the effect. Like the Gamboge Nodule, the aura should be transmutation, since that's what the item does.
Take the armband of the golden serpent. It's basic function is to protect you from attacks of opportunity from casting spells in melee. The closest spell was necromancy but the effect was to protect, Abjuration. Makes sense even if it doesn't follow the rules.
So Dimminsy, I think that the later books have been doing what makes sense instead of blindly following the books rules on magic detected. So I actually think many "tested" PRD books items don't fit the items powers as well as some of the newer 'untested' non-PRD items.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.. wonderful illustrations by wakedown ..
Shucks.
I'd have kept coming up with ideas for the sleeves had that thread not been locked down!
Part of me actually very much likes all the creative ways you can employ the sleeves to destroy matter and defy the laws of reality... because, magic.
For those late to the party:
Secretly, I'm afraid the author actually meant a physical transformation, but did not contemplate that this to allow gaining mechanical benefits i.e. yes, it's real clothes. No, it doesn't protect you from the cold. The other thread had a bunch of wonderful illustrations by wakedown involving the silliness that results if all the dirt you pile on the clothes magically disappears. A person could relieve themselves in their pants and then flip the garment and have them be magically cleaned. Who wouldn't pay 200gp to never have to use a privy for the rest of their life?
The only issue is that it never says how it stays clean. Maybe the clothes repel dirt so the clothes never get dirty. That means that dirt never attaches to the clothes and trying the privy trick only ends up with your clean pants filled with excrement... Remember always clean means never dirty. It never says YOU stay clean. That privy 'trick' is going to cause an awful mess no matter which way you read it. ;)
We had over 75 FAQ clicks before the other thread got locked so, no, not really.