| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No...but you can use a Harakami or Silken Ceremonial armor as a base line "clothes" type item that is armor. It's also base AC +1.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No...but you can use a Harakami or Silken Ceremonial armor as a base line "clothes" type item that is armor. It's also base AC +1.
It's worth noting that these two options have absolutely no drawbacks, even with non-proficiency.
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No...but you can use a Harakami or Silken Ceremonial armor as a base line "clothes" type item that is armor. It's also base AC +1.It's worth noting that these two options have absolutely no drawbacks, even with non-proficiency.
Technically, they have one - they're still too much armor for a monk. :)
I really need to create a Pedantic Princess alias...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That would be what I'd normally do, if I wasn't trying to work out a way to get some cheese on the scale of "Six Cheese Pizza with Extra Cheese, Cheese Stuffed Crust, and Nacho Cheese Dipping Sauce" working that is directly dependent on the raw AC total of the armor being as low as possible :)
Specifically, Bracers of Armor turn off if the other item is higher AC, or turn the other item off if they are higher AC. There's no clause if the AC is the same, so if you have the same AC between them and your armor, you can split +x enchantments between them and benefit from both. Since the bracers start at 0 AC, you need to get them to +2 before you could do this trick with a Haramaki, as opposed to +1 if you could do it against another 0 AC armor, which is enough of a cost difference that you don't actually save anything until you're trying to make the "combined" item have an effective +6-+7 bonus.
There's also weight. When your carry capacity is 16lb, that 1lb makes a difference! :)
I would think if they were equal you would have the choice of which one was active instead of one over-riding the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magic Vestment has specific wording.
An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.
Since it says "for the purpose of this spell", I do not believe you can make the general statement that normal clothing counts as +0 armor.
I would think if they were equal you would have the choice of which one was active instead of one over-riding the other.
Yes, that would make sense. As written in the Bracers of Armor, both would be active but the armor bonus would not stack.
I believe this is just a case of the designers overlooking the situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Enchant the Haramaki, then give it the broken condition.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
No...but you can use a Harakami or Silken Ceremonial armor as a base line "clothes" type item that is armor. It's also base AC +1.It's worth noting that these two options have absolutely no drawbacks, even with non-proficiency.Technically, they have one - they're still too much armor for a monk. :)
I really need to create a Pedantic Princess alias...
It's not that pedantic. It's actually really important in the context of this discussion.
If clothes counted as armor then monks couldn't wear clothes without losing their class features. It's a significant consequence of treating regular clothes as armor.
I, for one, am glad that we can avoid the horrors of +5 t-shirts and monk full frontals.
|
Contributor
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
No...but you can use a Harakami or Silken Ceremonial armor as a base line "clothes" type item that is armor. It's also base AC +1.It's worth noting that these two options have absolutely no drawbacks, even with non-proficiency.Technically, they have one - they're still too much armor for a monk. :)
I really need to create a Pedantic Princess alias...
It's not that pedantic. It's actually really important in the context of this discussion.
If clothes counted as armor then monks couldn't wear clothes without losing their class features. It's a significant consequence of treating regular clothes as armor.
I, for one, am glad that we can avoid the horrors of +5 t-shirts and monk full frontals.
I don't know what "horrors" you're thinking of. All I know is, I've never seen a monk who wasn't magnificently cut. Paraphrasing Shelyn... art was meant to be displayed. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know what "horrors" you're thinking of. All I know is, I've never seen a monk who wasn't magnificently cut. Paraphrasing Shelyn... art was meant to be displayed. :)No...but you can use a Harakami or Silken Ceremonial armor as a base line "clothes" type item that is armor. It's also base AC +1.It's worth noting that these two options have absolutely no drawbacks, even with non-proficiency.Technically, they have one - they're still too much armor for a monk. :)
I really need to create a Pedantic Princess alias...
It's not that pedantic. It's actually really important in the context of this discussion.
If clothes counted as armor then monks couldn't wear clothes without losing their class features. It's a significant consequence of treating regular clothes as armor.
I, for one, am glad that we can avoid the horrors of +5 t-shirts and monk full frontals.
Man, you must play with some pretty badly optimized monks. Charisma is a massive dump stat.
You wouldn't be using the word "magnificent" if the monk was a dwarf with 5 charisma. I hope so, at least.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Charisma is not a measure of physical beauty.
Example of CHA 10.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Charisma is not a measure of physical beauty.
Example of CHA 10.
ARG! AGH! GRR!! IT BURNS US, PRRRRRESSSCIOUSSS! BURNS WITH GOLARIPEDIA!
Really? When I look through the bestiary, there tends to be a correlation between charisma and beauty for humanoid shaped creatures that are quite close to human in form (or creatures with a Cha Bonus).
Besides, players usually decide what their character looks like. I highly doubt that most dwarven monk PCs would be described as Urist McWellCut. Urist McMuscles (aka Urist McSteroidAbuse) is a description I see as much more likely.
|
Charisma is not a measure of physical beauty.
Example of CHA 10.
you're not making a big case that low Cha can be beautiful with that pic... (ducks away from incoming nerf projectiles)
You wouldn't be using the word "magnificent" if the monk was a dwarf with 5 charisma. I hope so, at least.
You mean him? Cave-man or not, he's got great abs. :D
Really? When I look through the bestiary, there tends to be a correlation between charisma and beauty for humanoid shaped creatures that are quite close to human in form (or creatures with a Cha Bonus).
Besides, players usually decide what their character looks like. I highly doubt that most dwarven monk PCs would be described as Urist McWellCut. Urist McMuscles (aka Urist McSteroidAbuse) is a description I see as much more likely.
EDIT: Added links. :D
In the context of PFS:
Could normal clothing be enchanted like armor with a base AC of +0? Similar to Bracers of Armor, but in the Armor slot?
As you were asking about "in the context of PFS", I believe the answer is "no" as PFS requires that the armor be masterwork before it can be enchanted. As far as I know, you can't masterwork clothing as armor in PFS, so I believe that would prohibit you from enchanting it to +1 enhancement bonus to armor.
In a home game, I'd probably completely let you, but you did ask about PFS...
-TimD
|
|
Obviously PFS has it's own rules, so I can't speak for an official ruling on this, but I had always assumed you could add an enhancement bonus to armor on a set of clothes.
As mentioned, magic vestments does it. Likewise a robe of the archmagi does it. In a similar fashion, an amulet of natural armor can be worn by someone with out a natural armor bonus, can't it? I had always assumed it could, but maybe I am wrong...
As further evidence, adding enhancement bonuses to armor is the same cost per point as getting bracers of armor. So if you can't create magical armor clothes by Craft Magic Arms and Armor, then you should be able to create a custom magic item to put your bracers of armor on a different slot. unless PFS forbids custom magic items, which it very well might.
PFS Does ban Custom items.
An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.
There is a clear intent of overriding general rules for this spell, suggesting normal clothes are not armor normally.
The robe of the Archmagi is a greater wonderous magic item, not armor, even if it grants an armor bonus. Notably it couldn't be enchanted up to an equivalent +10 with special bonuses.
The Amulet of Natural armor (and the ring of protection) notably cost more for using alternate body slots and providing stackable (with each other, not themselves) bonuses to armor.
Unless you REALLY need the bracers slot, Bracers of armor are LESS expensive then enchanting clothes (which would need to be masterwork). Or you can just buy Silken Ceremonial Armor which is really the equivalent of +1 clothing...Unless you have a 'no armor' restriction like the monk.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I am saying that is a bad interpretation, I will say it is far from clear. It does not say "only for the purposes of this spell", nor does it make any other indication that this is abnormal.An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.There is a clear intent of overriding general rules for this spell, suggesting normal clothes are not armor normally.
It's a pretty clear example of "The exception proves the rule".
If clothes normally counted as 0 AC armor, then the spell wouldn't have to go out of its way to explain that, in this particular case, it does count as 0 AC armor.
You forget the other item that's needed for any work of Cheese. A DM who is any combination of the following... Compliant, Ignorant, or just plain Lazy.
...or hands tied by PFS to rules as written.
Unless they do an errata or FAQ on the Bracers of Armor, it is clear that there is nothing prohibiting the special abilities of both Bracers and Armor from functioning when the Armor bonus of the two exactly match. The armor bonus doesn't stack, but the special rule that causes either armor or bracers to cease functioning only covers the cases where the armor bonuses are not equal.
|
I'd let you do it, even in PFS. It's worth it for something that adds flavour to the character with no real drawbacks.
You'd have to have paid for the outfit (ie. not the free one you get at 1st level), it'd take up the armor slot like regular armor, and have 0 AC for a base. NPCs would recognise the outfit as if it were armor rather than clothing, just like they'd recognise a haramaki.
|
|
It's not the armor bonuses stacking I'm looking for - I know that doesn't work. It's piling on a bunch of +x special abilities, and getting them for a lower net cost because they're on separate items.
It's not like there aren't other drawbacks. You're devoting two item slots to armor. You are going to have a very low AC from items, and can't use Mage Armor because that will also trip the Bracer's shutoff condition. The only real reason I was wanting to do it is that for a character as squishy as this one, having two Spell Storing slots by sticking them on two pieces of simultaneously working "armor" seemed like it would be more beneficial to long term health than the potential AC that's being lost.
|
While I am saying that is a bad interpretation, I will say it is far from clear. It does not say "only for the purposes of this spell", nor does it make any other indication that this is abnormal.An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.There is a clear intent of overriding general rules for this spell, suggesting normal clothes are not armor normally.It's a pretty clear example of "The exception proves the rule".
If clothes normally counted as 0 AC armor, then the spell wouldn't have to go out of its way to explain that, in this particular case, it does count as 0 AC armor.
Never confused "need to" with "good idea to". It is often the case that weird rules are repeated in the few places where they become relevant to avoid people being victim to the "DM didn't memorize every obscure rule" problem. Alternatively, such rules might only be stated in those obscure locations because it was deemed too obscure to bother writing a general rule, or everyone just assumed it to be the general rule and forgot that it wasn't. People make mistakes, yo.
I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your conclusion here, just pointing out that the logic isn't the best.
Personally, I feel it's easier just to think of clothing as non-armor that's treated as a +0 bonus armor for the purposes of being improved (both temporarily and permanently). Not a very helpful statement in a rules forum, though.
Hm. Now I'm wondering ... out of all the clothing options, the only ones that could be argued as masterwork based on cost are the doctor's (and that assuming it's a masterwork nothing) and the royal outfit (base 50gp plus masterwork 150). Remember, your armour (or armour-substitute) needs to be masterwork to take enchantments.
Which makes me now imagine masterwork business suits, evening gowns, et cetera.
Honestly, I think the rules as intended were that normal clothes were just clothes and not enchantable with +1 armour or shield bonuses. Especially with 'magic vestments' needing an exception.
And I'm now imagining an evil GM saying that if your bracers of armour and your worn armour have the same AC, that means that NEITHER is the higher one, and thus BOTH are negated ...
I heard "dwarf," "monk," and "stuffed crust pizza." What are we doing here?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Charisma and beauty correlate, but they do not have a strict causal relationship.
A character who is beautiful may be more likely to develop into a confident adult whose confidence is very attractive in the social sense, and thus they have higher charisma. But that is not the *only* path to such confidence.
Thus, many creatures that have high charisma are beautiful, moreso than those without. But there are still creatures, even humanoid ones, that are not beautiful but still have high charisma.
Charisma and beauty correlate, but they do not have a strict causal relationship.
A character who is beautiful may be more likely to develop into a confident adult whose confidence is very attractive in the social sense, and thus they have higher charisma. But that is not the *only* path to such confidence.
Thus, many creatures that have high charisma are beautiful, moreso than those without. But there are still creatures, even humanoid ones, that are not beautiful but still have high charisma.
LOL I've met stunning people with the personality of a pet rock and it can happen in the game. SO I'll agree to a correlation, just not a direct correlation. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Charisma and beauty correlate, but they do not have a strict causal relationship.
A character who is beautiful may be more likely to develop into a confident adult whose confidence is very attractive in the social sense, and thus they have higher charisma. But that is not the *only* path to such confidence.
Thus, many creatures that have high charisma are beautiful, moreso than those without. But there are still creatures, even humanoid ones, that are not beautiful but still have high charisma.
This is an excellent post.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
In the context of PFS:
Could normal clothing be enchanted like armor with a base AC of +0? Similar to Bracers of Armor, but in the Armor slot?
No, but the spell Magic Vestment makes them a valid target for that spell temporarily.
There's no clause if the AC is the same, so if you have the same AC between them and your armor, you can split +x enchantments between them and benefit from both.
If this is for PFS, then you should avoid trying this. You will see table variance at any table that feels your pedantic reading of the rules isn't the Rules as Written by their interpretation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't seem to understand it was SPECIFICALLY to shut off what you want to do, that Paizo made this specific change regarding bracers of armor. Back in the days of 3.5 you'd have people walking around with highly enchanted armor and doing an end run around pricing by purchasing +1 bracers of heavy fortification.It's not the armor bonuses stacking I'm looking for - I know that doesn't work. It's piling on a bunch of +x special abilities, and getting them for a lower net cost because they're on separate items.
It's not like there aren't other drawbacks. You're devoting two item slots to armor. You are going to have a very low AC from items, and can't use Mage Armor because that will also trip the Bracer's shutoff condition. The only real reason I was wanting to do it is that for a character as squishy as this one, having two Spell Storing slots by sticking them on two pieces of simultaneously working "armor" seemed like it would be more beneficial to long term health than the potential AC that's being lost.
Er, what? Back in the days of 3.5, Bracers of Armor were armor bonus only, no plus-equivalent abilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Er, what? Back in the days of 3.5, Bracers of Armor were armor bonus only, no plus-equivalent abilities.You don't seem to understand it was SPECIFICALLY to shut off what you want to do, that Paizo made this specific change regarding bracers of armor. Back in the days of 3.5 you'd have people walking around with highly enchanted armor and doing an end run around pricing by purchasing +1 bracers of heavy fortification.It's not the armor bonuses stacking I'm looking for - I know that doesn't work. It's piling on a bunch of +x special abilities, and getting them for a lower net cost because they're on separate items.
It's not like there aren't other drawbacks. You're devoting two item slots to armor. You are going to have a very low AC from items, and can't use Mage Armor because that will also trip the Bracer's shutoff condition. The only real reason I was wanting to do it is that for a character as squishy as this one, having two Spell Storing slots by sticking them on two pieces of simultaneously working "armor" seemed like it would be more beneficial to long term health than the potential AC that's being lost.
Arms and Equipment Guide had rules for plus-equivalent abilities.
"Bracers of Armor and Armor Special Abilities: A character who has the Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item feats, as well as mage armor and all the other prerequisites necessary, can add the armor special abilities shown on Table 8–6 in the Dungeon Master’s Guide to a set of bracers of armor. The cost is the same as for adding a special ability to normal armor: an increase in the effective bonus of the bracers. Just as magic armor can never exceed a +8 enhancement bonus, bracers of armor never provide more than a +8 armor bonus. However, special abilities can increase the effective bonus as high as +13 (bracers +8 with an ability valued at +5, such as heavy fortification"
A&EG was 3.0, no? I don't recall that clause ever making it into a 3.5 book, but I don't have the Magic Item Compendium at hand.
A&EG was 3.0, no? I don't recall that clause ever making it into a 3.5 book, but I don't have the Magic Item Compendium at hand.
The "old 3.0 rules" still exists in 3.5 because the 3.5 rules say so. Check page 4 of your 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide:
"This is an upgrade of the d20 System, not a new edition of the game. This revision is compatible with all existing products, and those products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments."Second, the 3.5 Magic Item Compendium agrees with the 3.0 Arms and Equipment Guide that armor enhancements may be added in both Body and Arms slot items*. So that means magic armor (Body slot), magic robes such as Robes of the Archmagi (Body slot), and magic bracers (Bracers of Armor, Bracers of Retaliation) (Arms slot).
*[you could place them anywhere for an extra cost]
Now any DM could disallow 3.0 items in a 3.5 game, but the base game allows them by default and the Magic Item Compendium agrees (though doesn't single out the bracers directly).