Just ran into a situation that was quite harsh. An enemy critically hit my monk wearing +1 unarmored clothing with a corrosive weapon property rune weapon. The run says it does 3d6 acid damage to the individual's armor. This isn't much damage for a plate wearer, can be dangerous for a chain wearer,and is absolutely devastating for a cloth or leather armor wearer. It completely wrecked my armor.
So a few questions came from this:
Do armor potency or resilient runes increase hardness or hit points of armor or unarmored clothing?
If your armor is destroyed, are the armor potency and resilient runes destroyed?
This type of attack which is automatic as a corrosive rune crit or can be done as part of an Abrikandilu attack completely destroys unarmored clothing with no save or defense. If the runes are destroyed, that means any class using armor can have a major investment of their wealth immediately and irrevocably destroyed with fair ease. This makes plate wearers the main way to go for defense as investing in for example +3 greater resilient unarmored clothing only to have it easily destroyed a single critical hit from a corrosive rune or similar attack seems like a real liability when playing a defensive monk type.
Anyone know if there any rule that allows higher level magical armor to have greater hardness or hit points?
|
I don't have an answer to your question, but given the way Shields work, it seems the devs are perfectly fine with expensive items being permanently destroyed in combat...
I think it will be up to your house rules on how to handle it. If your DM is feeling kind, he might say that the clothes are destroyed, but the rune then drops to the ground because it's magical. Or at least give it a saving throw vs the effect.
the CRB is silent of whether a runestone is destroyed when the item is destroyed, so expect GMN variation. Personally I would rule no it is not effect.
There is a difference between a Runestone and a Rune.
The CRB says quite clearly on page 571 that a Runestone has the 'consumable' trait and
"When a rune is transferred from the runestone to another object, the runestone cracks and is destroyed.
What isn't clear is whether a rune etched on armor is destroyed when the armor is destroyed.
From the "Repair" crafting activity
You can't Repair a destroyed item.
Since it can't be repaired, it might also be true that the rune cannot be transferred from that item. Transferring runes requires you to successfully use the Crafting skill to do so.
As Jared Walter 356 says, Explorer's Clothing is explicitly stated not to be armor. Your Explorer's Clothing is undamaged.
The Abrikandilu wreck targets an object, not limited to armor. So yeah, bye bye clothing.
The OP was hit with a Corrosive weapon, not an Abrikandilu wreck attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know that the DM (even when I DM) that I would see Unarmored Clothing as immune to a corrosive rune. By RAW this might be the case that clothing is not armor, but RAI and the visual workings of this rune indicate it would burn away clothing.
I may have to switch to Bracers of Armor as that argument against bracers is far more reasonable as just bracers is not armor.
Just ran into a situation that was quite harsh. An enemy critically hit my monk wearing +1 unarmored clothing with a corrosive weapon property rune weapon. The run says it does 3d6 acid damage to the individual's armor. This isn't much damage for a plate wearer, can be dangerous for a chain wearer,and is absolutely devastating for a cloth or leather armor wearer. It completely wrecked my armor.
So a few questions came from this:
Do armor potency or resilient runes increase hardness or hit points of armor or unarmored clothing?
If your armor is destroyed, are the armor potency and resilient runes destroyed?
This type of attack which is automatic as a corrosive rune crit or can be done as part of an Abrikandilu attack completely destroys unarmored clothing with no save or defense. If the runes are destroyed, that means any class using armor can have a major investment of their wealth immediately and irrevocably destroyed with fair ease. This makes plate wearers the main way to go for defense as investing in for example +3 greater resilient unarmored clothing only to have it easily destroyed a single critical hit from a corrosive rune or similar attack seems like a real liability when playing a defensive monk type.
Anyone know if there any rule that allows higher level magical armor to have greater hardness or hit points?
You can't have +3 Greater Resilient Explorer's Clothing. Explorer's Clothing is not Armor, and only grants an exception for Potency Runes. You can't put Property Runes on Explorer's Clothing.
You can't have +3 Greater Resilient Explorer's Clothing. Explorer's Clothing is not Armor, and only grants an exception for Potency Runes. You can't put Property Runes on Explorer's Clothing.Just ran into a situation that was quite harsh. An enemy critically hit my monk wearing +1 unarmored clothing with a corrosive weapon property rune weapon. The run says it does 3d6 acid damage to the individual's armor. This isn't much damage for a plate wearer, can be dangerous for a chain wearer,and is absolutely devastating for a cloth or leather armor wearer. It completely wrecked my armor.
So a few questions came from this:
Do armor potency or resilient runes increase hardness or hit points of armor or unarmored clothing?
If your armor is destroyed, are the armor potency and resilient runes destroyed?
This type of attack which is automatic as a corrosive rune crit or can be done as part of an Abrikandilu attack completely destroys unarmored clothing with no save or defense. If the runes are destroyed, that means any class using armor can have a major investment of their wealth immediately and irrevocably destroyed with fair ease. This makes plate wearers the main way to go for defense as investing in for example +3 greater resilient unarmored clothing only to have it easily destroyed a single critical hit from a corrosive rune or similar attack seems like a real liability when playing a defensive monk type.
Anyone know if there any rule that allows higher level magical armor to have greater hardness or hit points?
You can have +3 Greater Resilient Explorer's Clothing just fine. The only property runes you can't put on Explorer's Clothing is Fortification, Invisibility and Shadow.
Plus explorer's clothing is included in the "Magic Armor" description ("A suit of magic armor is simply a suit of armor or explorer’s clothing etched with fundamental runes."), and the Robe fo the Archmagi is +2 Greater Resilient Explorer's Clothing.
Losing +3 Greater Resilient unarmored clothing to a critical hit from a corrosive rune is immensely lame.
"Explorer’s clothing can have armor runes etched on it even though it’s not armor, but because it’s not in the light, medium, or heavy armor category, it can’t have runes requiring any of those categories."
Nothing says it can't have property runes. That second part doesn't make sense if it can't.
You're right, that is in the text on page 581. I was going by the text of Explorer's Clothing itself, which only mentions Potency Runes.
Explorer’s Clothing: Adventurers who don’t wear armor travel in durable clothing. Though it’s not armor and uses your unarmored defense proficiency, it still has a Dex Cap and can grant an item bonus to AC if etched with potency runes (as described on page 581)
I really wish they would put all the rules for an Item in one place, instead of listing parts of them in multiple places.
Losing +3 Greater Resilient unarmored clothing to a critical hit from a corrosive rune is immensely lame.
Yeah, it sucks. I'm not entirely sure the Corrosive would work on Explorer's clothing because it's not technically armor, but the Wrecker Demon's ability would work, which still sucks.
If you're willing to house rule (not sure how your table feels about it), you can copy PF1s system, where every +1 (in this case it'd be potency) gave +2 Hardness and +10 HP.
So your +3 greater resilient explorer's clothing would be Hardness 7, HP 34 and BT 17. It'll hurt when hit with corrosive, but it won't destroy it completely even on max damage from Greater Corrosive, or an Abrikandilu's Wreck (unless it crits, I think).
(I was unable to find any similar rule in PF2, hence why I'm defaulting to PF1)
Losing +3 Greater Resilient unarmored clothing to a critical hit from a corrosive rune is immensely lame.Yeah, it sucks. I'm not entirely sure the Corrosive would work on Explorer's clothing because it's not technically armor, but the Wrecker Demon's ability would work, which still sucks.
If you're willing to house rule (not sure how your table feels about it), you can copy PF1s system, where every +1 (in this case it'd be potency) gave +2 Hardness and +10 HP.
So your +3 greater resilient explorer's clothing would be Hardness 7, HP 34 and BT 17. It'll hurt when hit with corrosive, but it won't destroy it completely even on max damage from Greater Corrosive, or an Abrikandilu's Wreck (unless it crits, I think).
(I was unable to find any similar rule in PF2, hence why I'm defaulting to PF1)
Greater Resilient Runes are a Level 14 Item. A Wrecker Demon is Level 4. By the time you get the Runes, that will not be a thing you have to worry about.