I don't understand the difference between these two. Unless the purpose of one is to be able to place talismans on it and the other runes.
It seems to me that these two items weren't well thought. Because if the Explorer's Clothes can have talismans as well as runes, then the Bracers will be pointless, and if the difference is that the Bracers can have talismans and the clothes don't, then why list the clothes as armor? Can someone help me understand this?
For one bracers of armor have resilience rune built in ie +1 armor and saves. For another they are slightly less fragile vs the rare ability that destroys armor. Finally they are an ascetic choice for monks ect that want to show off their bodies :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OTOH Explorer's Clothing can be upgraded one thing at a time, while bracers are always upgrading both potency and resilience. That means if you're at a level where you can afford 2 of one but only 1 of the other the clothing will let you do that and get max benefit, while the bracers will force you to wait.
So it's a choice between being better sometimes (clothing) and being cheaper sometimes (bracers).
...from the wording of Explorer's Clothing, which is way less permissive than Handwraps of Mighty Blows, it doesn't seem like you can affix talismans to them or apply property runes. I never realized that, and it's a little sad.
So Bracers are quite a bit cheaper and can accept talismans as if they were light armor, but are obtained 3/3/2 levels behind steadily upgraded Explorer's Clothing as far as pure bonus to AC goes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not getting Property Runes seems like a significant penalty at later levels when low-level bonuses are cheap (and wouldn't require further Investment allotments).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought you could place armor property runes on explorer's clothes, just not the runes that required a specific category of armor.
You can. The ability to hold property runes is a function of having a potency rune, and is specified in the potency rune entry.
Armor property runes are a lot less important than weapon property runes. They are either very situational, more expensive versions of existing items, or both. So you basically pay more to save on investiture slots.
Bracers of armor aren't easily destroyed by a corrosive rune. One corrosive rune crit wipes out your armor other than steel armor. Bracers don't count as armor for corrosive rune crits. Those are nasty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never noticed that Explorer's Clothing is not listed as armor for purposes of talismans. I wonder if that was an intentional design decision. It is hard for me to imagine that you can etch runes into clothes, but can't attach a small item.
Some of the armor talismans are literally pins. The Sneaky Key "can be pinned to armor or a sleeve."
I suspect RAI is that Explorer's Clothing can accept talismans.
Oh! I was looking in the wrong place. The Explorer's Clothing entry says it's not armor but can accept item bonuses to AC via runes, without mentioning property runes (which presumably require armor). But the general entry on runes has a different note at the end.
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.
I think it's not unreasonable for "armor runes" to also refer to armor property runes, especially since a strict reading of Explorer's Clothing would also keep it from accepting Resilient runes (which I didn't notice in my last post). So it looks like both fundamental and property runes are fine after all. I don't think it's unreasonable for it to accept talismans either, since Bracers of Armor generally feel like a weird holdover anyway, and the cheaper price+levels waiting feels like enough distinction.
...by the same "this is not armor but we'll make exceptions for it" note, it doesn't seem like the Corrosive rune actually affects clothes, rules as written. Because it specifies that it damages armor, if any.
Weird, but also a little counterbalanced by the fact that going with Explorer's Clothing means being 1 AC behind people with real armor until Lv 10, and that's assuming you put everything you have into Dexterity.
Explorer's Clothing also has the "Comfort" trait, which states
The armor is so comfortable that you can rest normally while wearing it.
I feel that RAI, Explorer's Clothing is meant to be "armor" in all ways, except that it uses unarmored proficiency. I think the editing just failed to clean up all the language.
Explorer's Clothing also has the "Comfort" trait, which states
The armor is so comfortable that you can rest normally while wearing it.I feel that RAI, Explorer's Clothing is meant to be "armor" in all ways, except that it uses unarmored proficiency. I think the editing just failed to clean up all the language.
You think monks shouldn't be able to wear it freely? 'Cause anything that is armor screws with monk abilities.
You think monks shouldn't be able to wear it freely? 'Cause anything that is armor screws with monk abilities.
Good point. I do not think that. I guess I'm trying to say that they had a rough time trying to describe when it acted as armor and when it didn't. They probably should just have added another armor category to cover clothing, bracers, and whatever might come in the future that fits into that group.
