Layers of Armor

[Paradozen]

Barring GM fiat, is it possible to wear armor underneath your normal armor?

Not for any benefit mechanically of course, but is it possible to wear a chain shirt under full plate? Or maybe even Chainmail under full plate? Would it change if the chainmail were mithral?

I'm asking with regards to a sunder character, covering some bases in case of GM's deciding to start sundering my stuff.

[Johnnycat93]

Yes. Only the best armor applies. However, keep in mind that magic armor is practically immune to sundering and so it's generally not worth the money to invest in a second suit of armor.

[Starbuck_II]

Paradozen wrote:

Barring GM fiat, is it possible to wear armor underneath your normal armor?

Not for any benefit mechanically of course, but is it possible to wear a chain shirt under full plate? Or maybe even Chainmail under full plate? Would it change if the chainmail were mithral?

I'm asking with regards to a sunder character, covering some bases in case of GM's deciding to start sundering my stuff.

Not unless using Piece Mail rules. But otherwise only highest applies.

[Bob Bob Bob]

So based on the one thing we have, it's definitely allowed and complicated as @#$%. Here's the Armored Coat. It's worse than other armor but the benefit is that it's a move action to put on. It explicitly says it can be worn over other armor, you use the best AC but the worst everything else and the only magic effects that apply are the top armor. Unless it's heavy armor, then you ignore all this? I don't know. The point being, it's definitely a thing that exists in some form.

As Johnnycat93 said though, it's actually relatively hard to destroy armor and weapons (especially armor). No crits limits spikes, hardness takes care of the rest. Adamantine bypasses this at the mid levels (once you can afford adamantine) and then becomes worthless once +5 metal gear comes into play (or +3 mithril or any adamantine). Adamantine is good for hardness less than 20, a +1 enhancement bonus is worth +2 hardness. +5 is worth +10, steel starts with 10, ergo a +5 longsword has hardness 20 and isn't ignored by adamantine. The HP is an issue for weapons but armor starts at AC*5, the extra +10 per enhancement just pushes it over the top.

Now, that all being said, don't @#$% with Barbarians. You see someone looking angry you run like a scared little child. Because Barbarians just smash everything.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Also of importance:

If a GM is targeting the armor that you've spent serious capital on and you've not been abusing to the expense of NPC tactics and common sense, it may be time to consider another group. Because that is what we call in the business a 'dick move'.

[James Risner]

Only one will apply, so if you have +1 spell storing and +2, then you pick +1 spell storing or +2, not +2 spell storing.

[Glorf Fei-Hung]

And if it were a house rules game, I'd take what Bob detailed and say it's only one applies, but max dex would be the lowest value of the two regardless (since you are wearing both) and ACP would be combined values in an "A Christmas Story" 'I can't put my arms down' type of effect.

[Brain in a Jar]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Because that is what we call in the business a 'dick move'.

It's not a "dick move" to use a Sunder combat maneuver.

[Derklord]

Silken ceremonial armor say it's "occasionally worn (albeit with no additional benefit) over heavier armor".

[Philo Pharynx]

Brain in a Jar wrote:

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Because that is what we call in the business a 'dick move'.

It's not a "dick move" to use a Sunder combat maneuver.

If sundering is common enough that the OP is thinking about wearing two layers of armor, then it is.

[Wheldrake]

Plate armor is already several layers of armor all on its own. First there are the custom-fitted metal plates, generally molded to each individual wearer, then the underlying chain mail, then the cloth padding.

If you use the optional armor as DR rules from PF Unchained, you could possibly integrate the added benefits of wearing more armor over your armor. But IMHO the penalties for wearing multiple sets really ought to be cumulative.

[Paradozen]

Thanks for all the input.

I would not be trying to get more than one armor bonus at a time, but since most of my medium/heavy armor characters wear a chain shirt to sleep at night even without layering armor, I thought it might be a good idea to have multiple suits of armor on normally. Especially if the signature move would be using smashing style against heavily-armored foes.

As for the GM using it, the only reason it might happen is because I would be using it. The agreement we have as a group is to play as strong as we want to, but understand that if something is considered fair for one side of the (metaphorical) GM screen its fair for both. Its not a dick move anymore than occasionally finding a monster immune to fire damage when playing a blaster, and the GM is good at not targeting players beyond what would make sense from a non-meta perspective.

[Murdock Mudeater]

Paradozen wrote:

Not for any benefit mechanically of course.

I'm asking with regards to a sunder character, covering some bases in case of GM's deciding to start sundering my stuff.

Sounds like you are contradicting yourself. If it has no mechanical benefit, it shouldn't matter if the GM decides to use a rules mechanic (like sunder) against you.

Paradozen wrote:

I would not be trying to get more than one armor bonus at a time, but since most of my medium/heavy armor characters wear a chain shirt to sleep at night even without layering armor, I thought it might be a good idea to have multiple suits of armor on normally. Especially if the signature move would be using smashing style against heavily-armored foes.

For sleeping, the Endurance feat allows you to sleep in medium armor without penalty, which should be enough for most adventuring.

As for laying armor, no, you couldn't bypass the "donning" requirement by equipping multiple suits of armor at the same time. Even if the GM allows you to wear the armor like that, you still couldn't claim to have "shed" the outer armor and now resolve sunders against your second layer of armor. That would be a mechanical benefit and beyond the scope of the rules. There are magic items to allow you to don armor or remove armor quickly, so I'd look into those.

Anyway, if the goal is to make a pure sunder character, and you don't want the GM to be able to sunder you back, I suggest making a character that doesn't wear armor or use manufactured weapons at all. There are some monk variants that can destroy armor pretty well. The Battle Oracle with the Wrecker Curse could also be pretty awesome there.

[thistledown]

Only a few months late to the thread. I tried to find the rules for armor stacking, but was unsuccessful. So I'll tag in a similar question here.

If I'm wearing named armor for its special effect, can I also wear different armor for actual protection?

I seriously doubt this is allowed, but thought I'd ask.

[Chess Pwn]

nope, it's all or nothing with armor.

[Murdock Mudeater]

thistledown wrote:

Only a few months late to the thread. I tried to find the rules for armor stacking, but was unsuccessful. So I'll tag in a similar question here.

If I'm wearing named armor for its special effect, can I also wear different armor for actual protection?

I seriously doubt this is allowed, but thought I'd ask.

So, one I learned recently, is that the special properties of armor or shields, are lost when you use a bonus from another source.

Apparently, if I have a +1 light shield of fire resistance, and then I cast the spell Shield, the higher bonus from Shield will be used, and I'll lose my fire resistance as well. Likewise, if the physical shield had a better shield bonus, I'd lose the magic missile protection from the Shield spell.

I find this rather goofy, but this is apparently covered somewhere. I had a similar thread going for equipping two shields that ended because of this conclusion. And it does seem like a Pathfinder sort of answer to the question.