|
The joy of a description contradicting itself.
Exhibit A: Aura moderate illusion
Exhibit B: Upon command, a suit of glamered armor changes shape and appearance
Exhibit C: Only a true seeing spell or similar magic reveals the true nature of the armor when it is disguised.
If it is an Illusion frisking the character or even simply touching her will give a save and, with a success, allow the deception to be discovered., but then that should be cited in the ways that allow to discover it, together with the save DC.
If it actually changes shape, it should be primarily a Transmutation effect.
If it is an illusion, the dagger will stay concealed, if it is a Transmutation it will not.
My opinion (but it is an opinion, not RAW), it is a Transmutation effect with a limited illusion effect, so the dagger or other equipment will not stay concealed.
If you are the GM you can choose how it works, you can even say that two versions exist, one that is an illusion based and maintain the original shape of the armor but can be detected by touching it (CL 10, so probably a level 4 effect with a DC of 16), and one that is a Transmutation effect and require the use of true seeing and co, but will not hide the equipment under the armor.
Since it doesn't affect AC bonus, I personally say that the "change shape" part is hogwash and that it's purely an illusion effect.
It is an illusion that doesn't allow a save. Specific over general.
As far as the 'changes shape' goes, it almost certainly doesn't physically change it shape, but it seems to change it's shape. The point being, that it can indeed look like a bikini, and not just bikini colored plate mail.
Mechanically of course, hiding a dagger in plate mail and hiding a dagger in a bikini are exactly the same, as neither is 'heavy or baggy clothing.' It is indeed unclear as to whether platemail glamered to be heavy clothing would provide this bonus, it probably doesn't really matter which you decide as long as you are consistent. Personally, I'd rule against it getting the bonus. Despite appearing to be heavy clothing, or a pickpockets outfit it is in fact not and thus can't give a mechanical bonus. It doesn't really have any pockets, even though it appears like it does.
It's an illusion, not a transmutation, but touching the character doesn't grant a Will save--you can't disbelieve glamered armor. Without true seeing, Perception is the usual means to notice that glamered armor isn't what it looks like, and even that won't let the viewer see its true form.
There's no written rule stating whether glamered armor occludes objects that wouldn't otherwise be occluded (or vice versa), but when you think about it, it wouldn't make much sense if it didn't occlude according to the glamer. The appearance of clothing is mostly defined by (1) the material's color and other optical properties and (2) what parts of the body and background the clothing occludes. The illusion simply wouldn't work if the illusion didn't occlude things differently from the armor's true form. So yes, glamered armor does hide or reveal objects that would normally be hidden/visible for the simple reason that to do otherwise would make the result nonsensical.
I don't think there is a raw answer. However, my interpretation is the following. I think it resolves its self nicely if we treat it as two overlapping effects.
Invisibility and silent image.
First the armor becomes invisible revealing anything that is underneath it. Then it creates a silent image of the desired clothing. In the case of the bikini not only would the dagger be visible but any clothing you are wearing underneath the armor would be as well. I agree that the "changes shape" is a misnomer since the effect is clearly an illusion because the armor retains all of it's normal properties.
The armor won't give you any bonus to frisking that it wouldn't normally give you. But, it would still visually conceal items(provided the simulated clothing conceals them) and should give a similar bonus as the clothing being simulated.
Conversely, this means that if your character was actually wearing bikini chain-mail and glammered it to look like a parka you could conceal a dagger that would otherwise be quite obvious.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is what GMs are for.
Just let them decide how it works.
Note that here is the "little problem" that the illusion affects only the armor and it will only seem a set of clothing.
So, your armor seems a bikini. But it can't generate an illusion of the creature flesh. What will we sed then? A blue screen instead of the chest of the person wearing it?
It doesn't need to generate an illusion of the creature's flesh. You simply see through that part of the armor. It's no different in principle than casting invisibility on the armor--glamers can cause things (or parts of things) to effectively disappear.
|
|
It doesn't need to generate an illusion of the creature's flesh. You simply see through that part of the armor. It's no different in principle than casting invisibility on the armor--glamers can cause things (or parts of things) to effectively disappear.Note that here is the "little problem" that the illusion affects only the armor and it will only seem a set of clothing.
So, your armor seems a bikini. But it can't generate an illusion of the creature flesh. What will we sed then? A blue screen instead of the chest of the person wearing it?
RAW it doesn't say it cast invisibility on itself. We can use the houserule we prefer, but, if we go by the text of the ability, we don't know what will happen if the new "shape" of the clothing doesn't cover an area that was covered by the armor.
One of the many things we gloss over for the sake of ease of play.
The text of the ability doesn't say what will happen if the new "shape" of the clothing happens to look like Richard Nixon's jowls, but it doesn't really have to. There's gloss and there's gloss.
|
|
The text of the ability doesn't say what will happen if the new "shape" of the clothing happens to look like Richard Nixon's jowls, but it doesn't really have to. There's gloss and there's gloss.
Actually, it says how it works. It takes the shape of a normal set of clothing. So it can't take the shape of "Richard Nixon's jowls", but it can take the shape of a Richard Nixon's mask or the shape of a T-shirt with the image of Richard Nixon's jowls.