Wearing Multiple armor simultaneously


Rules Discussion

The Exchange

My questions revolve around wearing multiple armors at the same time. The rules explicitly state that a PC wearing plate is also wearing padded armor (p276) so it is clear you can wear multiple armors at the same time. It is also clear that if you invest the heavy armor you can benefit from its runes even if not wearing it (p276). Finally it is clear that positive qualities such as Comfort only apply if not wearing armor without the quality.

My questions

1) Am I correct in assuming that multiple items which affect the same modifier would only benefit from the highest one? For example, item bonus to AC

2) If I have Bracers +3 AC, can I enchant explorer leathers with property runes (of course put the fundamental rune on first) and get the +3 item bonus to AC from Bracers and get a rune of Shadow from the padded armor

3) If I have mage armor with the +1 AC/+1 to saves, can I combine it with +1 runed studded leather armor (which gives +3 item bonus to AC) so I would have +3 AC/+1 Saves

I am not assessing whether it is more efficient or "better," rather I am trying to figure out how multiple sources of armor will interact according to the rules


No, that's not what the rules say... heavy armors include padded armor as part of their whole make up, and the rules allow you to wear just that piece of the armor "set" and retain some benefits. That's entirely different from wearing two different "sets" of armor at the same time.

There's no way to wear multiple different armors, but if there were then yes the general rules on bonuses would apply and you'd only use the highest bonus of each type (in this case, Item bonus).

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since Bracers and spells do exist and they can be easily combined with armors, then I assuming you are saying "Yes" to all the questions. Thank you.

As an aside, it was traditional in history to combine a gambeson with all types of mail not just plate (basic point is that padded armor should be able to be combined with virtually all armors


I believe this was discussed at length some time ago, but the general consensus was that you can feel free to allow your players to wear sensible armors together, so long as you never stack any bonuses. However there is precedent for wearing armor over an existing bonus granting effect, and having that effect be effective. I present to you the Living Rune Archetype feat which specifically states that worn armor property runes stack with the rune granted by the feat.

This supports the idea that you could wear property runed armor under other heavier armors. This use should be heavily monitored by the GM for abuse however, as I could imagine a scenario where a player is taking advantage of a ridiculous number of property runes using this method.

Edit: For clarities sake, I did not mean that the SAME property rune stacks with the same property rune. Only that the "living rune" feat rune is effective even under any armor the character wears.

Shadow Lodge

Laran wrote:
2) If I have Bracers +3 AC, can I enchant explorer leathers with property runes (of course put the fundamental rune on first) and get the +3 item bonus to AC from Bracers and get a rune of Shadow from the padded armor

This is just a horrible idea overall: Bracers are rather expensive items and lack a base Item bonus, so the item bonus from +3 Bracers (level 20) for 60k is equivalent to +2 Resilient Leather armor (level 11) at only 1.4k. I know you aren't looking for the 'most efficient' setup, but you really need to deliberately go out of your way for this combination to even seem remotely useful.

For nearly all intents and purposes, there is no reason to try to stack multiple armors, and the rules seem to assume no one will even try. As such, your GM will have to decide if/how it works.


Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I think it's clear from the rules that you can only wear one armor at once. See CRB page 535: "An item that needs to be worn to function lists 'worn' as its usage. This is followed by another word if the character is limited to only one of that type of item." Every suit of armor in CRB Chapter 11 lists its usage as "worn armor." But to respond to the questions:

Laran wrote:
1) Am I correct in assuming that multiple items which affect the same modifier would only benefit from the highest one? For example, item bonus to AC

Yes, since item bonuses don't stack.

Quote:
2) If I have Bracers +3 AC, can I enchant explorer leathers with property runes (of course put the fundamental rune on first) and get the +3 item bonus to AC from Bracers and get a rune of Shadow from the padded armor

I don't see any reason why you wouldn't be able to do this. (As Taja notes, it doesn't seem like a great idea--it seems strictly inferior to just putting both runes on the padded armor.)

Quote:
3) If I have mage armor with the +1 AC/+1 to saves, can I combine it with +1 runed studded leather armor (which gives +3 item bonus to AC) so I would have +3 AC/+1 Saves

Mage armor says, "While wearing mage armor, you use your unarmored proficiency to calculate your AC," which could be read to presume that mage armor is incompatible with wearing real armor. (I assume the text doesn't mean that you'd be able to use your unarmored proficiency even if you're actually wearing armor.) But I would read this narrowly to just be clarifying that you still use the unarmored proficiency if that is what you would use without the spell effect, so I think this combo should work.

Sovereign Court

Note that to get the +1 item bonus to saving throws out of Mage Armor, you need to heighten it to a 4th level spell. That's not exactly cheap.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can not wear more then 1 armor at a time.

Page 535 under held or worn mentions if an item mentions under usage 'worn itemtype' then only a single of these items can be worn at a time. They use the cloak as example.

Page 555 lists all magic armor: usage worn armor.

Chapter 6 - mundane equipment uses a much more condensed description without explicitly writing a single line per item for usage. But they write - albeit not in explicit format - that you need to wear armor to have the benefit. It would be weird to assume that this works different just because Paizo used space saving / flavourful text. The whole CRB already seems hard enough to read as it is.

As others mentioned - Plate Mail is an exemption to the rule as it consists of 2 parts - a padded armor as undercaot and the plate mail part as the outer layer and you get full protection using it together but you can just sleep in the inner part to have at least some protection during the night.

The Exchange

Orithilaen wrote:


Quote:
2) If I have Bracers +3 AC, can I enchant explorer leathers with property runes (of course put the fundamental rune on first) and get the +3 item bonus to AC from Bracers and get a rune of Shadow from the padded armor
I don't see any reason why you wouldn't be able to do this. (As Taja notes, it doesn't seem like a great idea--it seems strictly inferior to just putting both runes on the padded armor.)

Bracers of Armor +3 with padded +1 is 60,160

Padded armor with +3 potency and +3 resiliency is 70,000

Thus, you will save almost 10,000 gold. (a significant chunk of your wealth even at level 20). Down side would be investing 2 items instead of 1


Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Laran wrote:

Bracers of Armor +3 with padded +1 is 60,160

Padded armor with +3 potency and +3 resiliency is 70,000

Thus, you will save almost 10,000 gold. (a significant chunk of your wealth even at level 20). Down side would be investing 2 items instead of 1

That's a good point--I missed that bracers are generally cheaper than the equivalent fundamental runes.

Since the primary advantage of explorer's clothing over bracers is that it lets you use property runes, this makes me wonder if in fact they're not supposed to stack (though, as you say, the combo does have the drawback of using up two investment slots). But I can't think of a rule that would stop you.

Sovereign Court

Interesting, I hadn't realized bracers of armor came with resiliency included - but not before level 8.

I'm not completely sold on the Bracers/Padded combo though, because you could only put one property rune on the padded, while +3 Padded would fit 3 property runes. I guess the 10,000 difference is an opportunity cost?

The Exchange

Give the padded armor +2 and you are still 9,000 in the black. Give yourself Fortification (2,000 for 20% crit nullification) and Greater Shadow (+2 stealth for 650) and you are still roughly 6,500 in the black (about the price of a Ring of Wizardry IV).

Thus, the opportunity cost is giving up effectively 20% crit null constant, +2 stealth constant, +2 Arcana constant, 2 additional 4th level spell slots, and 1 3rd level spell slot


As somebody already stated, the point of the difference in cost is that Explorer's clothing gives you the chance to use runes.

If you don’t care about runes you can go with brace and save gold, but if you care instead, there is only one way.

I am not going to say that the price is right in terms of balance, but the fact you pay more to also enhance through runes is an extra you have to pay ( which can't be avoided by using brave + armor ).

The Exchange

But the fact is you can avoid. You buy bracers and cheap armor which can carry runes. In PF1 I believe it was explicit that bracers and magic armor would cancel but it is not stated in PF2. I picked padded since that is a standard underarmor. But yes, you could go with explorer leathers AND bracers to get both the AC/Resiliency and the Runes

*edit

So for about 70K

you either buy explorers leathers +3/+3

or

you but Bracers +3 (which is +3/+3) AND Padded +2 with Shadow and Fortification and a Ring of Wizardry IV. There are no more slots and even if there was, they would all take different slots


Laran wrote:
But the fact is you can avoid. You buy bracers and cheap armor which can carry runes. In PF1 I believe it was explicit that bracers and magic armor would cancel but it is not stated in PF2

To me it is simply logic.

Armor cap is the same for every class but heavy armor users, which have 1 more.

So here we have 3 possibilities

1) bracers - lowest cost, but no rune

2) light/medium armor - higher cost ( remember the special materials ) and the possibility to use runes

3) heavy armor - highest cost and the possibility to use runes.

If you think that thr developers deliberately meant to let players to exploit the system by wearing bracers + another armor ( every class will do that way. Otherwise would be stupid, as you would waste golds for nothing ), I say it is your choice.

To me, their intent is clear.

The Exchange

HumbleGamer wrote:
Laran wrote:
But the fact is you can avoid. You buy bracers and cheap armor which can carry runes. In PF1 I believe it was explicit that bracers and magic armor would cancel but it is not stated in PF2

To me it is simply logic.

Armor cap is the same for every class but heavy armor users, which have 1 more.

So here we have 3 possibilities

1) bracers - lowest cost, but no rune

2) light/medium armor - higher cost ( remember the special materials ) and the possibility to use runes

3) heavy armor - highest cost and the possibility to use runes.

If you think that thr developers deliberately meant to let players to exploit the system by wearing bracers + another armor ( every class will do that way. Otherwise would be stupid, as you would waste golds for nothing ), I say it is your choice.

To me, their intent is clear.

Unfortunately, intent is in the eye of the beholder. The developers may have felt that investing limits were the important thing so taking up 2 slots instead of 1 (20% vs 10%) of slots was a worth the 10k savings. Every choice in any game is a trade-off and only the developers understand how they valued the various choices

"Intent" is never clear (as has been amply demonstrated time and time again on the forums). When the developers include rules such as plate armor/padded armor and living rune, that muddies possible "intent" even more.

*edit

Choosing the bracers armor option is NOT a default choice given the investing limits

Consider - Why would a person every buy rune of energy resistance for 420 when they could buy a ring of energy resistance for 245? Slot cost


With your interpretation, any npc with int 8+ would exploit the system by having the highest befefits.

We would only see npc and enemies with bracers and shabby armors.

And that is not reality.

Also pointing out the limited number of invested items seems more an excuse, given the circumstance.

And I say this because I couldn't find anybody, at the moment, who refused those bonuses ( and gold saving ) in exchange of an extra slot.

But as said, if you think the dev intent
Was to create a world full of characters with magic bracers and armor, it is just your choice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
HumbleGamer wrote:

If you think that thr developers deliberately meant to let players to exploit the system by wearing bracers + another armor ( every class will do that way. Otherwise would be stupid, as you would waste golds for nothing ), I say it is your choice.

To me, their intent is clear.

Keep in mind, the item bonuses from the armor and from the bracers don't stack with each other. So it pretty often won't be the best choice (I think usually not unless it's a character who would normally be relying on bracers instead of armor). You will normally want the best potency rune you can afford on the best armor you have your best proficiency in, since the potency rune and the armor's base item bonus do stack.

Edit: In other words, the real advantage of this combo is that it lets you get armor property runes more cheaply, not that it boosts your AC or saves.

The Exchange

Of course, I can customize any game at any time by creating rules that do not exist in the game. There is NO rule which prohibits the bracer and armor combination from functioning but I can make one (it is not even a question of interpretation since there is NO rule to interpret). You are creating a strawman extreme and using it to justify your interpretation of "intent."

While I might agree with your logic, the problem is in places like Organized Play where you have to play with rules as written or clarified by actual developers/campaign staff. You are not allowed to use your own interpretation of a developer's "intent."


Orithilaen wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:

If you think that thr developers deliberately meant to let players to exploit the system by wearing bracers + another armor ( every class will do that way. Otherwise would be stupid, as you would waste golds for nothing ), I say it is your choice.

To me, their intent is clear.

Keep in mind, the item bonuses from the armor and from the bracers don't stack with each other. So it pretty often won't be the best choice (I think usually not unless it's a character who would normally be relying on bracers instead of armor). You will normally want the best potency rune you can afford on the best armor you have your best proficiency in, since the potency rune and the armor's base item bonus do stack.

Edit: In other words, the real advantage of this combo is that it lets you get armor property runes more cheaply, not that it boosts your AC or saves.

Hem, that was the point of the discussion.

To use the most economic combinations, because it does not have any disadvantage, and it is way, way cheaper.

And because of that everybody would.

@laran: to me it is you the one who is creating illogic patterns, since there are no real disadvantages when it comes to a limited amount of golds.

And because of that everybody will go for that way.

I say Good luck to master or take part an adventure with only bracers users.

And good luck finding somebody saying " I prefer to throw away golds in stuff which gives me the exact amount of bonuses", because you won't.

The Exchange

Orithilaen wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:

If you think that thr developers deliberately meant to let players to exploit the system by wearing bracers + another armor ( every class will do that way. Otherwise would be stupid, as you would waste golds for nothing ), I say it is your choice.

To me, their intent is clear.

Keep in mind, the item bonuses from the armor and from the bracers don't stack with each other. So it pretty often won't be the best choice (I think usually not unless it's a character who would normally be relying on bracers instead of armor). You will normally want the best potency rune you can afford on the best armor you have your best proficiency in, since the potency rune and the armor's base item bonus do stack.

Edit: In other words, the real advantage of this combo is that it lets you get armor property runes more cheaply, not that it boosts your AC or saves.

Of course. Everything is a resource in every game made. I am pointing out that to pick one choice (using bracers and rune armor) trades invested slots for cash. Is there a time when you would be willing to pay 10k to free up an invested slot? Yes, of course there is

The Exchange

HumbleGamer wrote:
Orithilaen wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:

If you think that thr developers deliberately meant to let players to exploit the system by wearing bracers + another armor ( every class will do that way. Otherwise would be stupid, as you would waste golds for nothing ), I say it is your choice.

To me, their intent is clear.

Keep in mind, the item bonuses from the armor and from the bracers don't stack with each other. So it pretty often won't be the best choice (I think usually not unless it's a character who would normally be relying on bracers instead of armor). You will normally want the best potency rune you can afford on the best armor you have your best proficiency in, since the potency rune and the armor's base item bonus do stack.

Edit: In other words, the real advantage of this combo is that it lets you get armor property runes more cheaply, not that it boosts your AC or saves.

Hem, that was the point of the discussion.

To use the most economic combinations, because it does not have any disadvantage, and it is way, way cheaper.

And because of that everybody would.

Not every one. For example, if I needed the slot I would not do this.

*edit

The developers believe that going from +2 to +3 in many cases is worth 20K+. Why would they not think that freeing up a slot is worth 10k


Laran wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
Orithilaen wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:

If you think that thr developers deliberately meant to let players to exploit the system by wearing bracers + another armor ( every class will do that way. Otherwise would be stupid, as you would waste golds for nothing ), I say it is your choice.

To me, their intent is clear.

Keep in mind, the item bonuses from the armor and from the bracers don't stack with each other. So it pretty often won't be the best choice (I think usually not unless it's a character who would normally be relying on bracers instead of armor). You will normally want the best potency rune you can afford on the best armor you have your best proficiency in, since the potency rune and the armor's base item bonus do stack.

Edit: In other words, the real advantage of this combo is that it lets you get armor property runes more cheaply, not that it boosts your AC or saves.

Hem, that was the point of the discussion.

To use the most economic combinations, because it does not have any disadvantage, and it is way, way cheaper.

And because of that everybody would.

Not every one. For example, if I needed the slot I would not do this.

Cmon

1st you won't have the money by the time you are saving for other stuff. And it is way better to expend 1 slot for it because it is not a trade at all.

2nd you won't be needing all the slots. Never. That's a fake assumption, especially during lvl ing to 20.

Because on the one hand you will be lacking golds

And on the other hand, the amount you will be saving because of that exploit would be way bigger than having and extra free slot.


Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
HumbleGamer wrote:

Hem, that was the point of the discussion.

To use the most economic combinations, because it does not have any disadvantage, and it is way, way cheaper.

And because of that everybody would.

Again, only if (1) you don't need or can't use the base armor bonus to AC and (2) you do want one or two of the property runes. In that situation, it's a nice bit of economizing (probably not intended but hard to tell and there's no rule against it).

But it's a pretty narrow situation. If you want to maximize your AC with any type of armor but explorer's clothing, it doesn't help. And of you're a wizard, you might rather spend the money or slots on other things.

Note also that you can already get some of the property rune benefits from other slots (as Laran says above), which makes me think this may actually be RAI--the expense of armor relative to bracers is a slots premium, you're paying for the one, two, or three extra property runes slots associated with the potency rune.

The Exchange

The why bother putting in a 10 slot limit and even providing a feat that will raise the limit to 12. If the 10 slot limit was meant as a fake assumption, then why have it and even spend the time to develop a feat that raises an already unneeded cap?

The Exchange

Orithilaen wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:

Hem, that was the point of the discussion.

To use the most economic combinations, because it does not have any disadvantage, and it is way, way cheaper.

And because of that everybody would.

Again, only if (1) you don't need or can't use the base armor bonus to AC and (2) you do want one or two of the property runes. In that situation, it's a nice bit of economizing (probably not intended but hard to tell and there's no rule against it).

But it's a pretty narrow situation. If you want to maximize your AC with any type of armor but explorer's clothing, it doesn't help. And of you're a wizard, you might rather spend the money or slots on other things.

Note also that you can already get some of the property rune benefits from other slots (as Laran says above), which makes me think this may actually be RAI--the expense of armor relative to bracers is a slots premium, you're paying for the one, two, or three extra property runes slots associated with the potency rune.

Yes, this would be a case for light armor users usually *edit* or wizards.


You might consider to spend golds on other stuff when you have the golds.

I can hardly imagine what scenario you are proposing or how much gold do you happen to get during your campaigns.

Sometimes I have to choose between upgrading my armor or weapon or shield, while you are talking about possibilities to choose between bracers + armor and armor.

That's why I think to have the possibility to choose between the progression of armor and weapon + extra slots + etc is not a real one, since you will be always short on golds.

And because of that, if you will offer xxxxx golds extra to any person in exchange of a slot ( obviously those who uses armor, not invisibile archers with melt into Stone ), they will choose to get more golds, because they will never be enough.

As for the 10 slot limit, is meant to limit invested items. Not to justify using 2 armors, gaining different benefits from each other, and saving tons of golds

The Exchange

HumbleGamer wrote:

You might consider to spend golds on other stuff when you have the golds.

I can hardly imagine what scenario you are proposing or how much gold do you happen to get during your campaigns.

Sometimes I have to choose between upgrading my armor or weapon or shield, while you are talking about possibilities to choose between bracers + armor and armor.

That's why I think to have the possibility to choose between the progression of armor and weapon + extra slots + etc is not a real one, since you will be always short on golds.

And because of that, if you will offer xxxxx golds extra to any person in exchange of a slot ( obviously those who uses armor, not invisibile archers with melt into Stone ), they will choose to get more golds, because they will never be enough.

By the same token, the offering of expensive +3 items in the CRB is then fake. Given the option (since money is limited) of spending the money on Apex items vs other items, everyone would pick apex items.


http://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=587

Here's the Tab

Feel free building a fighter of any lvl and give him enough occupi ed slots to justify not using that combo.

The Exchange

HumbleGamer wrote:
As for the 10 slot limit, is meant to limit invested items. Not to justify using 2 armors

As I mentioned earlier, Intent is in the eyes of the beholder.


Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

HumbleGamer: if you're not worried about slots, you're going to use armor property runes a lot less (and maybe never, as the game adds more magic items). For example, there are lots of items that give you item bonuses to Stealth, and while they're usually not cheaper than the item bonus equivalent rune of shadow, they also have other nice abilities. And the ring of energy resistance actually is cheaper.


Orithilaen wrote:
HumbleGamer: if you're not worried about slots, you're going to use armor property runes a lot less (and maybe never, as the game adds more magic items). For example, there are lots of items that give you item bonuses to Stealth, and while they're usually not cheaper than the item bonus equivalent rune of shadow, they also have other nice abilities. And the ring of energy resistance actually is cheaper.

You have different rings.

And as pointed out, given the starting golds/items per level, feel free to create a fighter.

One with bracers, the other without.
Remember also to use rare materials foe your armor.

Don't also forget a weapon with at least 1 rune.

Reality is that you will be always short on golds compared to your level, and if you give a choice to save up golds, that would be accepted by everybody, because to be able to invest in something better would be always better than 1 extra slot.

The Exchange

1. Armor (even explorers clothing)
2. Belt of Regeneration/Belt of Giant Strength
3. Aeon Stone/Wayfinder
4. Boots of Speed
5. Cloak of the Bat
6. Doubling rings (if want to dual wield)
7. Dread Blindfold (most fighters want Intimidation)
8. Ring of Energy Resistance (if you want more than 1 from a rune on armor)
9. Brooch of Shielding
10. Gloves of storing (for when you really need to pull out the shield or other item)
11. Third eye (Perception is always wanted)
(oops limit is 10) so scratch off 2 of them if you use bracers)

These are all useful items that a person might want. It is not a question of you or I wanting them, but rather that is is conceivable that a person might want to slot all


Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
HumbleGamer wrote:
You have different rings.

There's no limit on how many rings you can have, except the overall cap on 10 invested items.

Quote:

And as pointed out, given the starting golds/items per level, feel free to create a fighter.

One with bracers, the other without.
Remember also to use rare materials foe your armor.

If I create a fighter, I'm going to outfit them in full plate and purchase the best potency and resilience runes I can afford. Then the extra 10000 (10030 counting the price of full plate) nets me an additional +6 to my AC. (If my Dex is 20 or higher, it's only a +1, but now we're adding yet another cost to the combo.)

The Exchange

HumbleGamer wrote:


Reality is that you will be always short on golds compared to your level, and if you give a choice to save up golds, that would be accepted by everybody, because to be able to invest in something better would be always better than 1 extra slot.

I pointed out how the rules appear to allow a combination to be made. Stating that everybody would make a particular choice is not always the case. Let us say a person wants to be a "ring mage" and buys 4 rings of resistance (since each element is separate) and then a few other items. They could hit the item cap long before level 10 even.

Whether something should exist if it is mechanically inferior to other choices - Take the humble spyglass. It costs 20 gp and has no mechanical RULE advantage. So it should not exist. However, it exists and is legal


You didn't say the lvl ( hopefully not lvl 20 ). Apart from that:

- Brooch of shield ing is a waste slot
- way Finder too
- doubling ring you didn't say which lvl tier.
- third eye is not a need
- no weapon mentioned

Seems a real mess.

Here some tipa

1) declare lvl

2) declare nr of items given + extra golds ( or eventually, golds only. But you will have way less golds )

3) state the price near the items ( to double check the sum )

4) just use useful stuff ( a brooch of shielding, lol ) and make sure to specify, if they are different rank of it ( like doubling rings )

5) remember at least high grade mithril armor if you decide for a high lvl character.

6) remember to add a weapon of the highest tier. Eventually with a rune ( not 3. 1 ).

With thesempio informations you could be able to see

1) if you made a forced use of full slots or not

2) if saving golds through the bracers stuff will give you a better setup,even with 4 free slots.

The Exchange

No - My intent was to show that there could be times when different choices are made and thus item slots can be considered valuable by different players. I was not trying to convince you that every item that someone would choose would not be "a waste of space"

BTW: show me the Invested trait on the weapon you would choose


Laran wrote:

No - My intent was to show that there could be times when different choices are made and thus item slots can be considered valuable by different players. I was not trying to convince you that every item that someone would choose would not be "a waste of space"

BTW: show me the Invested trait on the weapon you would choose

Invested trait?

I am talking about saving xx k golds to enhance a weapon or buy a better one.

Seems that motives are lacking.
And that golds are always the right choice.

You pointed out that you have the choice to occupa slots with useless stuff, and with even an incomplete list it is neat that it is better to use 3 slots out of 10, with better equioment, than having useless stuff invested.

The Exchange

HumbleGamer wrote:
Laran wrote:

No - My intent was to show that there could be times when different choices are made and thus item slots can be considered valuable by different players. I was not trying to convince you that every item that someone would choose would not be "a waste of space"

BTW: show me the Invested trait on the weapon you would choose

Invested trait?

I am talking about saving xx k golds to enhance a weapon or buy a better one.

Seems that motives are lacking.
And that golds are always the right choice.

You pointed out that you have the choice to occupa slots with useless stuff, and with even an incomplete list it is neat that it is better to use 3 slots out of 10, with better equioment, than having useless stuff invested.

You asked for a list of items which take the limited item slots. When I showed you a list off the top of my head, you said it did not include a weapon. Only those items which have the Invested trait require use of the slot. Most if not all weapons do NOT take a slot. That is why I asked you to show me the Invested trait for the weapon you wanted in order to see if it required a slot.

The intent of this thread was to ask about combining 2 items such as Bracers and runed armor. There are no rules prohibiting it. You mentioned that it was clear that the developers intent was to prohibit it. Unfortunately, I think you might be conflating PF1 with the new PF2 rules (e.g. your insistence that people are limited to 2 rings, use of body slots rather than the new invested slots)

Also, stating your opinion about whether items are "useless" or some equipment is better so don't bother with the rest is irrelevant to the combining items rules


No I deliberately linked you a Tab with golds and asked to to build a 2 fighters.

One with bracers and the others without.
Just to let you see what I aready checked.

That's why my post explaining you how to make an efficient comparison, without excluding important gold sink as weapons, or trying to put invested items worth 30gp just to occupy slots.

The Exchange

HumbleGamer wrote:

No I deliberately linked you a Tab with golds and asked to to build a 2 fighters.

One with bracers and the others without.
Just to let you see what I aready checked.

That's why my post explaining you how to make an efficient comparison, without excluding important gold sink as weapons, or trying to put invested items worth 30gp just to occupy slots.

Wow, just wow. Just reread my original post and then read your last post. Anyways, I defer to your better builds and wish you good gaming

Sovereign Court

Am I missing something? You can't put more property runes on an armor than it's got potency, right? So if I wanted to put three property runes on my armor, I'd need a +3 armor.

So the "bracer + armor" hack is only useful if I don't want a lot of property runes, right?

The Exchange

Ascalaphus wrote:

Am I missing something? You can't put more property runes on an armor than it's got potency, right? So if I wanted to put three property runes on my armor, I'd need a +3 armor.

So the "bracer + armor" hack is only useful if I don't want a lot of property runes, right?

Correct. If you wanted 3 property runes, you would need a +3 potency rune (and that is the maximum). With the +2 armor you could put on 2 property runes. So if you wanted to have the third property rune, the bracers/armor setup would not work (that is why I only showed fortification and shadow). If had a +1 armor, you would only be able to put one rune (e.g. getting the 20% crit chance nullification would be quite nice)

Shadow Lodge

Laran wrote:
Orithilaen wrote:


Quote:
2) If I have Bracers +3 AC, can I enchant explorer leathers with property runes (of course put the fundamental rune on first) and get the +3 item bonus to AC from Bracers and get a rune of Shadow from the padded armor
I don't see any reason why you wouldn't be able to do this. (As Taja notes, it doesn't seem like a great idea--it seems strictly inferior to just putting both runes on the padded armor.)

Bracers of Armor +3 with padded +1 is 60,160

Padded armor with +3 potency and +3 resiliency is 70,000

Thus, you will save almost 10,000 gold. (a significant chunk of your wealth even at level 20). Down side would be investing 2 items instead of 1

Magic Padded / Leather Armor (including the base +1):

(+2 Resilient) 1,400 gp = +3 AC, +1 Saves
(+2 Greater Resilient) 4,500 gp = +3 AC, +2 Saves
(+3 Greater Resilient) 24,000 gp = +4 AC, +2 Saves
(+3 Major Resilient) 70,000 gp = +4 AC, +3 Saves

If it is worthwhile spending 55,500 gp for a +1 Save upgrade, I'd think another 10,000 gp for +1 AC upgrade seems like a pretty good deal.

The Exchange

Taja the Barbarian wrote:
Laran wrote:
Orithilaen wrote:


Quote:
2) If I have Bracers +3 AC, can I enchant explorer leathers with property runes (of course put the fundamental rune on first) and get the +3 item bonus to AC from Bracers and get a rune of Shadow from the padded armor
I don't see any reason why you wouldn't be able to do this. (As Taja notes, it doesn't seem like a great idea--it seems strictly inferior to just putting both runes on the padded armor.)

Bracers of Armor +3 with padded +1 is 60,160

Padded armor with +3 potency and +3 resiliency is 70,000

Thus, you will save almost 10,000 gold. (a significant chunk of your wealth even at level 20). Down side would be investing 2 items instead of 1

Magic Padded / Leather Armor (including the base +1):

(+2 Resilient) 1,400 gp = +3 AC, +1 Saves
(+2 Greater Resilient) 4,500 gp = +3 AC, +2 Saves
(+3 Greater Resilient) 24,000 gp = +4 AC, +2 Saves
(+3 Major Resilient) 70,000 gp = +4 AC, +3 Saves

If it is worthwhile spending 55,500 gp for a +1 Save upgrade, I'd think another 10,000 gp for +1 AC upgrade seems like a pretty good deal.

Depending upon the build/class. That is why I keep saying over and over that it is NOT an automatic choice. Take a mage (please) - They can only use explorer leathers so there is no base +1 (only explorer leathers). On light armor users, the dex cap comes into play. Medium and Heavy armor, the bracers/padded(or explorers) is not useful.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Wearing Multiple armor simultaneously All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.