If a special ability states "a malevolent armor... etc" or "this shield... etc"
Intuitively, it seems implicit that the special ability is only intended for shields OR armors, depending on the text, even if no rule specifically states that such restrictions may exist.
EDIT: Is this the case?
You don't have any question in that post.
Well, mail of malevolance is a specific item, not an armor special ability. So it is always exactly as listed, chainmail. Other abilities are listed on the charts for armor, shield, or both. Which chart it is on seems explicit.
Well, mail of malevolance is a specific item, not an armor special ability. So it is always exactly as listed, chainmail.
I'm referring to "malevolent", a special ability found on "Pathfinder Player Companion: Agents of Evil" ^^
Ah, my mistake then, I don't have that book, but Nethys lists it as an armor quality, not shield. I don't know what, if anything, other than the text you quote, leads to that.
Yes. If it specifies an armor (and not something like "armor or shield), then it's assumed that it only applies to that type of item.
The description usually dictates what sort of item can have it, and can be as open as "Any armor or shield," or as restrictive as "Only light armor." (For the record, this FAQ regarding Mithril is relevant for determining what type of armor your Mithril armor item is for the purposes of what enhancements can be placed on it, so keep that in mind if you are wearing Mithril armor of some kind.)
As Java Man has stated, the tables regarding special abilities do specify what properties can be placed on weapons, armor, shields, ammunition, and so on.
Ah, my mistake then, I don't have that book, but Nethys lists it as an armor quality, not shield. I don't know what, if anything, other than the text you quote, leads to that.
Ah, my mistake then, I don't have that book, but Nethys lists it as an armor quality, not shield. I don't know what, if anything, other than the text you quote, leads to that.This is the property in question.
The text of the property indicates that while you can put it on a shield, it has no effect unless it's actually on a worn SUIT of armor.
DM's call. Expect table variation if you put this on a shield.
Special abilities are intended for armor or shield as per the tables.
The armor you mention is a specific armor, it has no generic ability, and is listed under specific armors (65-70). Malevolent is the name of the armor, not an ability.
While you can easily imagine most abilities working on either piece, some are not. When you look at the tables for shield abilities and find bashing, I am hard put to imagine that on a platemail.
It is up to the DM, if he wants to have the abilities interchangeable.
Instinct and experience tell me that a player is up to no good, if he wants to diverge from the standard material. I have memories of the socks of fireresistance, the underwear +3, the cloak with the sacred bonus instead of resistance to the saves ("a priest made it"), the infamous ring of surestrike (my players went through the 1st level spells after reading about item creation and as everyone else jumped on that), and a sword of fire (kinda like a staff of fire, but as 2H sword).
Special abilities are intended for armor or shield as per the tables.
The armor you mention is a specific armor, it has no generic ability, and is listed under specific armors (65-70). Malevolent is the name of the armor, not an ability.
While you can easily imagine most abilities working on either piece, some are not. When you look at the tables for shield abilities and find bashing, I am hard put to imagine that on a platemail.
It is up to the DM, if he wants to have the abilities interchangeable.Instinct and experience tell me that a player is up to no good, if he wants to diverge from the standard material. I have memories of the socks of fireresistance, the underwear +3, the cloak with the sacred bonus instead of resistance to the saves ("a priest made it"), the infamous ring of surestrike (my players went through the 1st level spells after reading about item creation and as everyone else jumped on that), and a sword of fire (kinda like a staff of fire, but as 2H sword).
Malevolent (found here: malevolent ) is indeed a special ability, not listed in tables on pfsrd, the text seems to suggest it's armor-only
There is also mail of malevolence (found here: Mail of Malevolence ) which is a specific magic armor
Regarding the rest of your post, I'm all for respecting slots as written, I can clearly discern that slots are there to balance things out, I just want to make sure if and when such limitations exist.
As far as I can tell you (and I am not an avid reader of FAQs), the distinction is only inherent in the tables. I cannot remember seeing a passage that states "these abilities can only be on armor".
So if a DM decides that they are interchangeable, why not? It is technically a low-level form of powercreep, since you are able to use two abilities from one table where you normally can use only one. But I think that nothing earthshattering will come from it, except some discussions why both effects should now stack (like the bonus from malevolent).
Since I checked a few abilities: some of them state where they can be put. Withstanding can only be on medium armor, adamant only on heavy armor, singing can only be on a shield, spellstoring says armor in its text, some state it can be on both (fortification, ghost touch, radiant).
Without reading through all of them, maybe the restrictions were all put into the individual descriptions?
In the case of malevolent it isn't even minor powercreep, the cost for this ability is a flat cost, not an enhancement equivalent. So putting it on a shield is only weaker than armor, as it requires the shield to be in hand to function.
|
Agents of Evil has four armor special abilities. One of them specifically says that it can only be used with light and medium armor. Another specifically says that it can only be used with shields. The other two, including malevolent, do not make any exclusivity statement, but refer to 'suits of armor' with the ability.
Based on that, I'd assume that the intent was for it to be an armor only enchantment and not available on shields.
No, I meant that in general, because you get two picks off something where you usually get only one, like spell-storing (just an example). If the abilities are interchanged, you can have two spells, where it were only one before. Or someone with a 2H weapon can now use a shield ability, which was not possible before (again, I cannot think of a gamebreaking example here, its only the principle behind it).
It won't break anything, but such things add up over time.
I am not concerned about the cost, btw, just about the in-game possibilities such items create. Not very much, though, given the similarity of armor and shield (both defensive items).
The example with the malevolent armor was picked since I have been at discussions, where the rule-lawyers had a go at each other about semantics (only MtG tournaments can be worse). It reads "the enhancement bonus of the armor can be applied to attack rolls" and that is enough to make some people think it will stack (after all it obviously stacks with the weapon and its enhancement bonus...and so on...). Nevermind that the whole thing is nothing major :)
Anyway, to re-state it: the only specific rules are in the descriptions and some of them are ambiguous while others are not.