Handwraps aren't weapons or armor or clothes. Nothing mysterious about it.
Handwraps aren't clothes???
After careful review, they most certainly are clothes by standardized definition.
As you invest these embroidered strips of cloth, you must meditate and slowly wrap them around your hands. These handwraps have weapon runes etched into them to give your unarmed attacks the benefits of those runes, making your unarmed attacks work like magic weapons. For example, +1 striking handwraps of mighty blows would give you a +1 item bonus to attack rolls with your unarmed attacks and increase the damage of your unarmed attacks from one weapon die to two (normally 2d4 instead of 1d4, but if your fists have a different weapon damage die or you have other unarmed attacks, use two of that die size instead).
You can upgrade, add, and transfer runes to and from the handwraps just as you would for a weapon, and you can attach talismans to the handwraps. Treat the handwraps as melee weapons of the brawling group with light Bulk for these purposes. Property runes apply only when they would be applicable to the unarmed attack you’re using. For example, a property that must be applied to a slashing weapon wouldn’t function when you attacked with a fist, but you would gain its benefits if you attacked with a claw or some other slashing unarmed attack.
Additionally, they are worn gloves. While this is more of a slot, the description does denote that they are indeed cloth, which is a singular form of clothes, technically speaking, so it is definitely a form of clothing, unlike, say, gauntlets or other metallic fist weapons.
Furthermore, it's not actually anything else, but only treated as anything else (such as being a weapon) for the purposes of applying runes, talismans, etc., as denoted in its description.
They are not clothing (the item), they are weapons.
...
If they meant clothing as "anything worn" they wouldn't have specified the difference between Clothing and Armor in the ability.
Respectfully, I disagree.
Clothing and armor are different enough that people are unlikely to confuse the two, and so the clarification that both would be effected is warranted.
Also, they are not weapons. They are only treated as such with regards to adding runes.
|
They are not clothing (the item), they are weapons.
...
If they meant clothing as "anything worn" they wouldn't have specified the difference between Clothing and Armor in the ability.
Respectfully, I disagree.
Clothing and armor are different enough that people are unlikely to confuse the two, and so the clarification that both would be effected is warranted.
Also, they are not weapons. They are only treated as such with regards to adding runes.
Because of how natural attacks work, they are basically weapons.
If it was material based it would state so, otherwise we have a very odd disconnect where held weapons are fine but armor and clothing (including all jewelry), basically anything and everything worn is all destroyed.
Which makes no sense. It's referring to clothing, the item. Not everything worn.
Handwraps aren't weapons or armor or clothes. Nothing mysterious about it.
I agree. Handwraps are explicitly not Weapons, nor are they one of the 5 types of clothing.
They are not clothing (the item), they are weapons.
...
If they meant clothing as "anything worn" they wouldn't have specified the difference between Clothing and Armor in the ability.
Respectfully, I disagree.
Clothing and armor are different enough that people are unlikely to confuse the two, and so the clarification that both would be effected is warranted.
Also, they are not weapons. They are only treated as such with regards to adding runes.
Because of how natural attacks work, they are basically weapons.
If it was material based it would state so, otherwise we have a very odd disconnect where held weapons are fine but armor and clothing (including all jewelry), basically anything and everything worn is all destroyed.
Which makes no sense. It's referring to clothing, the item. Not everything worn.
I can't cast Magic Weapon on a fist or claw, and worn gloves aren't listed in the weapons table, which disproves the "Handwraps/Claws are Weapons" theory.
Except it is, when clothing encompasses more than just armor. When the item states it's made of cloth, which all clothing is made out of, and it's considered a worn item not unlike explorer's clothing, then yes, it's definitely considered clothing. I initially thought it wouldn't be affected, but it's a good thing I re-read the description, which swayed my opinion the other way.
As for different articles, as I stated above it depends on the craft. Robes and other vestments (which aren't armor by any means) would certainly count. Rings and Necklaces, probably not, unless they're somehow made of cloth (like tribal charms usually are).
|
|
Again, material is irrelevant, if you have a cloth sword, it's a sword made of cloth, a weapon, not clothing.
Please point out anywhere in the Pudding's abilities where it says it doesn't affect metal or specifically affects cloth.
Corrosive Touch says it affects armor and clothing (not cloth, clothing). Going off your using of the term clothing and not the item it would affect everything worn, since
A) Jewelry is clothing
B) It affects metal as Corrosive Touch specifies Armor and Corrosive Mass affects weapons
If you're using clothing incorrectly to refer to anything and everything made of cloth, that is you making that up, the ability does not state it specifically goes after cloth. It says clothing, there's a difference.
I don't understand why this should just be a monk issue.
If any character gets hit by a black pudding attack, then it suffers consequences.
Not to say that "2d6 acid damage" without considering
1) Item Hardness
2) Item HP
3) Item BTmeans nothing.
Finally, instead of thinking about "what handwraps are not" we should maybe focus on different subjects, like:
- Why shouldn't they be weapons? ( to me, simply because we already have a fist on the weapon table. The handwraps are just something which enhances a fist, but this doesn't mean they don't suffer damage. Any weapon would suffer damage. Handwraps are imo no different ).
- What are them if they are not weapons nor clothes?
Fists aren't Weapons, and neither are Handwraps. They are a Worn Item. Like goggles or a ring.
Frankly I think it's pretty clear that the intention is for Explorer's Clothing to not be immune to something that affects armor. The goal is certainly not to make your character deal with suddenly being nude. The game goes out of its way to avoid such subjects.
Handwraps aren't weapons, they are "like weapons" in their description.
They don't have statistics which would let them function as a weapon, even though they can be boosted like one...to in turn boost the actual weapons, the natural attacks.
I always imagined them like boxer tape made out of cloth, so not clothing. Yet if someone else imagined them more like gloves, then yes, they would be. Kung Fu movie examples, the most likely influence, are unfortunately similar to both.
And under Usage, they are labelled "worn gloves" which seals the deal IMO. Gloves are clothing. Since item slots aren't a thing, this is a description, not a slot designation.
So Handwraps are gloves (clothes) which can take weapon Runes (as a specific exception) to boost one's natural weapons.
And Black Puddings retain their notoriety for equipment destruction, much to my chagrin given how many Monk ideas I have.
Because of how natural attacks work, [the handwraps] are basically weapons.
What? Not even natural attacks are considered weapons.
Again, material is irrelevant.
Yes, something's base material is irrelevant. That is why I excluded that portion when I quoted you.
I agree with the general miscellaneous considerations:
Clothing is a category of item in the Adventuring Gear table, and there are currently five types:
- Ordinary
- Explorer's
- Fine
- High-fashion fine (level 3)
- Winter
Weapons are weapons - handwraps are explicitly *not* weapons, they are worn items that are worn as gloves, which are also not part of the category of clothing. They conflict with other items that are worn as gloves, but there is no other mechanical effect from that. The handwraps are safe from black pudding attacks.
So - Monks/casters wearing explorer's clothing that get hit are screwed, at least temporarily - I personally think the runes can still be transferred to another set, and posted it in the errata/FAQ thread at launch, specifically. That said - heavy armor users likely have enough hardness in their armor that their armor may not even take damage (black pudding doesn't say it bypasses hardness). All "destroyed" does vs. "broken" is make it impossible to repair the item.
FAQ candidate only: What happens to runes when items get destroyed? Destroyed is barely defined; one sentence near the bottom of the second column says "A destroyed item can't be Repaired." Looks like it doesn't override the Broken condition, which largely disables the functionality of any item (leaving a little in place for Armor). There's nothing saying runes get broken/destroyed, and there's nothing in the crafting rules for transferring runes that mentions the state of the item they're coming from, so runes may be still be transferable. If they're not, anyone wearing explorer's clothing or padded armor is extremely vulnerable to armor damage effects (few though they may be). A single black pudding (level 7, Bestiary p.255) melee attack would completely destroy either of those armors on an average attack with 5 acid damage on 2d6. Cloth armor has 1 hardness and 4 HP per Table 11-4 on p.577 and does not appear to be adjusted in any way by item level.
Again, material is irrelevant, if you have a cloth sword, it's a sword made of cloth, a weapon, not clothing.
Please point out anywhere in the Pudding's abilities where it says it doesn't affect metal or specifically affects cloth.
Corrosive Touch says it affects armor and clothing (not cloth, clothing). Going off your using of the term clothing and not the item it would affect everything worn, since
A) Jewelry is clothing
B) It affects metal as Corrosive Touch specifies Armor and Corrosive Mass affects weapons
If you're using clothing incorrectly to refer to anything and everything made of cloth, that is you making that up, the ability does not state it specifically goes after cloth. It says clothing, there's a difference.
It's not just material, though. It's also if it's worn. Weapons aren't worn, they're wielded. Same with shields. What I'm saying is that handwraps are both cloth and worn, which is what clothing essentially is. You can argue that materials don't matter, but the ability refers to two types of items, armor and clothing. Clothing isn't specified as a game term, unlike armor, which is.
You're going to have to ultimately define what constitutes clothing in the game for me to better understand how you're coming to your interpretation. Does it have to have clothing in its name or description? Does it have to be worn, or can simply holding a pair of undies still constitute it being damaged by the pudding? What about unorthodox items like cloaks or headbands, wouldn't they count even though they don't have clothing in their name? What about items constituted majorly or entirely of cloth, shouldn't they be affected?
Corrosive Mass only affects metal or wood weapons. If someone with handwraps punches or claws a black pudding, it's fine and without recourse, because not only do they not fall under a weapons category, they are made of neither wood or metal. A reasonable GM might argue that the character would take 2d6 acid damage, but per RAW, they wouldn't.
|
|
Exactly. Hand wraps are the weapons for them.Because of how natural attacks work, [the handwraps] are basically weapons.What? Not even natural attacks are considered weapons.
Again, material is irrelevant.Yes, something's base material is irrelevant. That is why I excluded that portion when I quoted you.
That was in response to Darksol, who seems to be focusing on Clothing being anything made of cloth and only made of cloth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As Rico already pointed out.Clothing isn't specified as a game term, unlike armor, which is.
You're going to have to ultimately define what constitutes clothing in the game for me to better understand how you're coming to your interpretation.
Just because a website set it off on its own page does not make that a defined game-term of official category.
Magical worn items I could see going either way on this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because a website set it off on its own page does not make that a defined game-term of official category.
That category also exists in the CRB though.
Also: Look at the names of the items listed there. You'll notice a pattern.
That was in response to Darksol, who seems to be focusing on Clothing being anything made of cloth and only made of cloth.
Not necessarily. Leather, wool, hide, and scales would count as well in my book.
But not metals?That was in response to Darksol, who seems to be focusing on Clothing being anything made of cloth and only made of cloth.Not necessarily. Leather, wool, hide, and scales would count as well in my book.
In my opinion, no. Metal isn't used in most clothing items for obvious reasons. For starters, it's uncomfortable. Furthermore, it's clunky and unwieldy for even the most experienced wearers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, no. Metal isn't used in most clothing items for obvious reasons. For starters, it's uncomfortable. Furthermore, it's clunky and unwieldy for even the most experienced wearers.But not metals?That was in response to Darksol, who seems to be focusing on Clothing being anything made of cloth and only made of cloth.Not necessarily. Leather, wool, hide, and scales would count as well in my book.
Fine clothing, suitable for a noble or royal, is made with expensive fabrics, precious metals, and intricate patterns.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As Rico already pointed out.Clothing isn't specified as a game term, unlike armor, which is.
You're going to have to ultimately define what constitutes clothing in the game for me to better understand how you're coming to your interpretation.
Just because a website set it off on its own page does not make that a defined game-term of official category.
Magical worn items I could see going either way on this.
I was reading the PDF. Clothing's game rules are defined on p. 285. It's as real a definition as those for backpack*, bandolier, and caltrops, all of which are on the same page. They all appear in table 6-9, on the following page, with the clothing types grouped together with indents in exactly the terms I used in my bullet points.
Like, I don't know what else to tell you here. Y'all are working from the dictionary instead of the game rules.
*The backpack, of course, was given additional rule text via errata not covered in my PDF.