The rules are clear that you cannot add property runes to specific magical armor. However, the robe of the archmagi appears in the Worn Items section of the Core Rulebook, not the Specific Magical Armor section, and so arguably does not fall under the same umbrella of restrictions.
So, can you add property runes to a robe of the archmagi? I'm thinking yes, as it's meant to be a highly magical piece of gear, and would have been easy enough to add into the Specific Magical Armor section if the developers had wanted. Nevertheless, I'd like to hear others' thoughts on the matter.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another factor to consider, its says:
"The robes are +2 greater resilient explorer’s clothing, and they grant a +1 circumstance bonus to saving throws against arcane spells and resistance 5 to damage from arcane spells."
So the robes are an item that can take runes. If it had said something like 'gives the same bonuses as a +2 greater resilient ..." without being, that would have been a point against adding property runes IMO.
Personally, I'd probably still consider them specific magical armor. Under the precedent that named staffs are specific magic weapon and also aren't in the specific magic weapon section.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I'd probably still consider them specific magical armor. Under the precedent that named staffs are specific magic weapon and also aren't in the specific magic weapon section.
That's my view as well. If a Staff of the Magi is a specific weapon then a Robe of the Magi is likely a specific armor.
Personally, I'd probably still consider them specific magical armor. Under the precedent that named staffs are specific magic weapon and also aren't in the specific magic weapon section.That's my view as well. If a Staff of the Magi is a specific weapon then a Robe of the Magi is likely a specific armor.
Except it's not armor at all. It's clothing. If you recall, it is in the "unarmored" category, not the "light," "medium," or "heavy" category. Ergo, the armor rules do not apply to it except where specifically stated.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't add a property rune to a robe of the archmagi - a clear no.
You already answered one case:
Specific Magic Armor
These suits of armor have abilities far different from what can be gained by etching runes. A specific magic armor lists its fundamental runes, which you can upgrade, add, or transfer as normal. You can’t etch any property runes onto a specific armor that it doesn’t already have.
So if the robe is magical armor then it is a no as the specific case rules it out. You already concede that - but it's worth repeating to see how the rules interact.
Now look at the other case. You argue the robe isn't armor.:
Property Runes
Property runes add special abilities to armor or a weapon in addition to the item’s fundamental runes. If a suit of armor or a weapon has multiple etchings of the same rune, only the highest-level one applies. You can upgrade a property rune to a higher-level type of that rune in the same way you would upgrade a fundamental rune.
So if the robe isn't armor then the general case rules it out.
Also:
Antimagic - usage - etched on armor
Energy resistant - usage - etched on armor
Ethereal - usage - etched on armor
Fortification - Usage etched onto medium or heavy armor
Glamered - armor
Invisibility - light armor
Shadow - light or medium non metallic armor
Slick - armor
Case closed.
Edit:
And before someone quotes unarmoured cases:
Each rune can be etched into a specific type of armor or weapon, as indicated in the Usage entry of the rune’s stat block. 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.[/b]
Explorer clothing is 'non-armor' that gets a specific exemption that allows adding runes.
By RAW you can't even stich runes on ordinary, fine, high fashion or winter clothing.
Explorer’s clothing is sturdy enough that it can be reinforced to protect you, even though it isn’t a suit of armor. It comes in many forms, though the most common sorts look like clerical vestments, monk’s garments, or wizard’s robes, as members of all three classes are likely to avoid wearing armor. For more information on explorer’s clothing, see pages 275–276.
Based on Thod's quotes above, explorer's outfits are not armor. That is made abundantly clear.
Said rules also state that you can add runes to armor even though they aren't armor, UNLESS the rune description specifies it falls into the light, medium, or heavy armor categories.
Therefore, you can add the following runes onto explorer's clothing: fundamental runes plus antimagic: energy resistant, ethereal, glamered, and slick.
Since the robe of the archmagi is not armor, and therefore not a specific armor, but it IS a set of explorer's clothing, then you can add the above runes to it per RAW.
What exactly am I missing here?
By RAW you can't even stich runes on ordinary, fine, high fashion or winter clothing.
Correct. They're not sturdy enough I suppose.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a bit of a gray area, but I'm pretty sure the obvious intent is that it is a specific type of equipment that can't be altered outside of fundamental runes.
The good news is that you can still enhance it to +3 Major Resilient if you really wanted, and since most other armor properties are trash, it's pretty worth. The bad news is that upgrading to Greater doesn't already do this for you, so it's crazy expensive to do so.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since the robe of the archmagi is not armor, and therefore not a specific armor, but it IS a set of explorer's clothing, then you can add the above runes to it per RAW.What exactly am I missing here?
How did I miss that?
Clothing worn by explorers IS explorers clothing.
That is great. My next wizard will buy a robe of the archmagi at level 1. After all - robe of the archmagi = explorer clothing.
Explorer clothing cost me 1 sp and is a common level 0 item.
What exactly am I missing here?
Just in case my evil GM won't let me do that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since the robe of the archmagi is not armor, and therefore not a specific armor, then you can add the above runes to it per RAW.This is a statement I think you need to back up with some clear and unambiguous proof before anyone will agree with you tbh.
What? It's right there in the item entry. Can't miss it.
The robes are +2 greater resilient explorer’s clothing, and they grant a +1 circumstance bonus to saving throws against arcane spells and resistance 5 to damage from arcane spells.
I understand that some people don't like it on account of it feeling like you're getting the cake and eating it too, but this is the Rules forum, where we discuss the RAW, and not feelings.
(Well, you CAN discuss your feelings, but you can't say that your feelings dictate the rules.)
How did I miss that?
Clothing worn by explorers IS explorers clothing.
That is great. My next wizard will buy a robe of the archmagi at level 1. After all - robe of the archmagi = explorer clothing.
Explorer clothing cost me 1 sp and is a common level 0 item.
What exactly am I missing here?
Just in case my evil GM won't let me do that?
Reductio ad absurdum does not become you. Such transparent argumentative ploys do not change what the RAW actually says, no matter how much you may want it to.
Robes of the archmagi are explorer's clothing. It says so right in the description. This is indisputable.
Explorer's clothing are not armor. They fall into the "unarmored" category, just like nakedness does. They are also specifically called out as not being armor. This too is indisputable.
The rules allow certain runes to be applied to explorer's clothing even though they are not considered armor. Indisputable.
Robes of the archmagi are not specific magical armor. How could it be? It is neither armor, nor is is in the Specific Magical Armor section of the rulebook. Indisputable.
Ergo, someone could add runes to robes of the archmagi. There's literally no rule preventing it, and a number of rules that support it. They could not buy it for 1sp like they could normal explorer's outfits, despite Thod's Reductio ad absurdum claim.
Until a developer steps in and says that was not the intent, I'm 99.99% certain that RAW supports my interpretation on this.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Until a developer steps in and says that was not the intent, I'm 99.99% certain that RAW supports my interpretation on this.
Well, you can be as sure as you want but I think the issue is will others agree? So far, it seems like you'd be disagreeing with everyone here is they where your DM, me included.
You have to treat explorer’s clothing for runes just to be able to add then to it: as such, why wouldn't you treat is as armor when your question is 'can I add runes to it'? It's magic and treated as armor for your question, so trying to say it isn't Magical Armor seems quite odd: it's has to be a Worn Item that's treated as Specific Magical Armor, or you wouldn't have the base runes on it.
#1 explorer’s clothing is treated as armor, or else you can't add runes.
#2 If it has unique magic outside normal runes, it's a specific magic item.
#3 you are trying add runes so you have to treat the clothes as armor to do so and what would you call a specific magic item that's treated as armor for what you're doing? Seems clear that'd be treating it as a specific magic armor.
I mean if that's how you want to run it at your tables that's fine, but then I don't really see what the point of this thread was either.
Where in the rules does it state that a robe of the archmagi is, or is treated as, specific magical armor?
Seems to me you guys are the ones with the burden of proof on that particular point.
No, quit trying to game it by saying "It's armor but it's not armor but it is but it isn't... so it should work!"
You know what you're doing. Just stop.
Stop quoting the rules?
I've maintained the entire time that it is not armor, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
I mean if that's how you want to run it at your tables that's fine, but then I don't really see what the point of this thread was either.
Starting to wonder that myself. Maybe my brain wasn't as awake then as it is now.
Thod's quotes helped me get there, I'm just not sure how he reached the exact opposite conclusion via the same rules.
Still interested in seeing other people's view points and reasoning on the matter. Just less interested in hearing them tell me I'm wrong. :P
Where in the rules does it state that a robe of the archmagi is, or is treated as, specific magical armor?
Seems to me you guys are the ones with the burden of proof on that particular point.
#1 it's a specific magic item you can't replicate just with runes.
#2 It's specifically magical#3 it's specifically treated as armor or you couldn't use runes.
So you treat it as a) specific, b) magic, c) armor. You add those together and what do you get? IMO, that clearly adds up treating it as specific magic armor. You're trying to make it Schrödinger's magic item, where it both is and isn't treated as magic armor at the exact same moment as you need to treat it as magic armor to add the runes but treat it as Worn Item for those exact same runes for determining what runes you can add. Can't you see the paradox in that?
Where in the rules does it state that a robe of the archmagi is, or is treated as, specific magical armor?
Seems to me you guys are the ones with the burden of proof on that particular point.
#1 it's a specific magic item you can't replicate just with runes.
#2 It's specifically magical
#3 it's specifically treated as armor or you couldn't use runes.
So you treat it as a) specific, b) magic, c) armor. You add those together and what do you get? IMO, that clearly adds up treating it as specific magic armor. You're trying to make it Schrödinger's magic item, where it both is and isn't treated as magic armor at the exact same moment as you need to treat it as magic armor to add the runes but treat it as Worn Item for those exact same runes for determining what runes you can add. Can't you see the paradox in that?
I agree with point #2, but you haven't presented any evidence for your first and third assertions.
It is specifically magical in the same way that all magically worn items are, but it's also an explorer’s outfit, which the rules clearly state we can add certain runes to, despite not being armor.
I'm not making the case that it's treated as armor, and I'm wondering why you seem to be as nothing seems to support that (not in the rules, and not in any of the statements I've made).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Useful to note and in the exact same vein (just with weapon vs armor), from the CRB errata and FAQ:
Finally, in attacking with a staff, add "Staves are also staff weapons (page 280). They can be etched with fundamental runes but not property runes. This doesn’t alter any of their spellcasting abilities." since staves are specific weapons, with the staff abilities as the additional abilities.
I agree with point #2, but you haven't presented any evidence for your first and third assertions.
Say what now?
It is specifically magical in the same way that all magically worn items are, but it's also an explorer’s outfit, which the rules clearly state we can add certain runes to, despite not being armor.
Yes, I covered that: if you don't treat it as armor, you don't even get to the point of adding runes. It's CLEARLY treated as ARMOR while doing so.
I'm not making the case that it's treated as armor, and I'm wondering why you seem to be as nothing seems to support that (not in the rules, and not in any of the statements I've made).
Ah... How are you adding runes to it if you aren't treating it as armor?
Look at Chapter 11: Crafting & Treasure [Core Rulebook pg. 555] under Armor Alternatives: "Explorer's clothing can be etched with runes just like armor can". It talks about specific/special material armors before and after this section. To figure out how it's damaged, you look in "Damaging Armor". It's listed under the cloth armor group. It has an armor trait, Comfort, which ONLY makes sense is it's treated as armor since only "armor results in poor rest and causes a character to wake up fatigued". It's pretty much only treated as 'not armor' for proficiencies and specific armor type restrictions on property runes.
EDIT: and of course, you can see Mark's post. ;)
How are you adding runes to it if you aren't treating it as armor?
I'm adding runes because the rules say that you can add runes to armor or to explorer's clothing. It's clearly an exception to the norm. The fact that there is an exception does not make the explorer's clothing armor.
(I do admit, the rest of your post makes a more compelling case than you had previously.)
Useful to note and in the exact same vein (just with weapon vs armor), from the CRB errata and FAQ:
Finally, in attacking with a staff, add "Staves are also staff weapons (page 280). They can be etched with fundamental runes but not property runes. This doesn’t alter any of their spellcasting abilities." since staves are specific weapons, with the staff abilities as the additional abilities.
To be absolutely clear, you're saying that developer intent is that you cannot add property runes to a robe of the archmagi any more than you could a spellcasting staff?
If that's the case, then I think more errata might be necessary, as that doesn't appear to be supported by the RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A. Explorer's Clothing (emphasis and hyperlinks added) CRB Page 275
B. Robe of the Archmagi (emphasis and hyperlinks added) CRB Page 616. . .
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. . .
C. Specific Magic Armor CRB Page 557Embroidered with fine silver thread in ornate arcane patterns, these robes come in one of three colors depending on their attuned alignment . . .
The robes are [Armor Potency] +2 greater resilient explorer’s clothing, and they grant a +1 circumstance bonus to saving throws against arcane spells and resistance 5 to damage from arcane spells.Activate Reaction command; Frequency once per day; Trigger You attempt a saving throw against an arcane spell, but you haven’t rolled yet; Effect You automatically succeed at your save against the triggering arcane spell . . .
These suits of armor have abilities far different from what can be gained by etching runes. A specific magic armor lists its fundamental runes, which you can upgrade, add, or transfer as normal. You can’t etch any property runes onto a specific armor that it doesn’t already have.
CONCLUSION: Robes of the Archmagi are not Specific Magic Armor, but still may not be etched with Armor Property Runes.
It is self evident that the Robes of the Archmagi are not armor and, therefore, do not fall under the Specific Magic Armor umbrella. They are enchanted Explorer's Clothing which is explicitly not armor.
However, while the Specific Magic Armor proscription against adding additional Property runes does not apply, the nature of Explorer's Clothing does. Explorer's Clothing are specifically able to receive Armor Potency runes but have no such allowance for Resilient or Property Runes. Ergo, they may be etched with Potency runes only.
|
A. Explorer's Clothing (emphasis and hyperlinks added) CRB Page 275Nope, Explorer's Clothing explicitly can take any armor rune that doesn't specifically require light, medium, or heavy armor (of course, this rule is buried in a separate section):B. Robe of the Archmagi (emphasis and hyperlinks added) CRB Page 616. . .
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. . .C. Specific Magic Armor CRB Page 557Embroidered with fine silver thread in ornate arcane patterns, these robes come in one of three colors depending on their attuned alignment . . .
The robes are [Armor Potency] +2 greater resilient explorer’s clothing, and they grant a +1 circumstance bonus to saving throws against arcane spells and resistance 5 to damage from arcane spells.Activate Reaction command; Frequency once per day; Trigger You attempt a saving throw against an arcane spell, but you haven’t rolled yet; Effect You automatically succeed at your save against the triggering arcane spell . . .
These suits of armor have abilities far different from what can be gained by etching runes. A specific magic armor lists its fundamental runes, which you can upgrade, add, or transfer as normal. You can’t etch any property runes onto a specific armor that it doesn’t already have.CONCLUSION: Robes of the Archmagi are not Specific Magic Armor, but still may not be etched with Armor Property Runes.
It is self evident that the Robes of the Archmagi are not armor and, therefore, do not fall under the Specific Magic Armor...
Core Rulebook pg. 580 2.0 ...Source
Each rune can be etched into a specific type of armor or weapon, as indicated in the Usage entry of the rune’s stat block. 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.
Personally, I think the Robe is pretty clearly Specific Magic Armor in all but name and therefore can't take property runes, but that's just my opinion...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me it's pretty clear that there are two options and both result in no property runes.
Either it's a specific armor (of the explorer's clothing variety) in which case it can't have property runes.
Or it's not armor, but it is explorer's clothing, so it can have fundamental runes but no property runes, per explorer's clothing.
Personally I think the second one makes more sense.
I can't see any argument that results in property runes being allowed, and haven't been able to follow RD's arguments for such. Sorry RD, I think you're out of luck.
*shrug*
All that can be said has been said. If you still believe robes can have property runes, we can't help you.
Nobody here asked to be helped; just to know your thoughts.
Sorry RD, I think you're out of luck.
Perhaps. Hopefully, Mark will clarify his post for us and--if I am out of luck as you say--start getting some clarifying wording in place for the next round of errata.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thod's quotes helped me get there, I'm just not sure how he reached the exact opposite conclusion via the same rules.
a) By missing a bit that the Paizo team missed as well. I didn't go through the description of the robe which defined the robes of the archmage as a +2 greater resilient explorer clothing
b) Not needing Mark Seifter to explain the intend
Paizo needed to exempt Explorer Clothing and allow property runes on it to ensure there is a way to allow unarmoured characters to benefit from armor runes.
I actually assume your original reply was Reductio ad absurdum - until reading the description.
Still - you tried to get away on a technicality while reading discussions (and errata) here should have made it obvious that it shouldn't work.
But maybe what is obvious to some isn't obvious to others. So I'm glad Mark chimed in.
And yes - on a further technicality - Mark chiming in isn't the same as an errata. But good enough for me an many others here.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
#1 explorer’s clothing is treated as armor, or else you can't add runes.
This is the problem.
The rules say - 'You can't have your cake and eat it'
But if the rules say it looks like a cake, it tastes like a cake, it is treated like a cake but doesn't say it is a cake then by RAW some players still try to have it and eat it.
And technically you can't stop them citing RAW.
My original post showed the interplay of the rules - alas it also exposed a tiny loophole.
How can you ask that!? He couldn't be more clear...
I can ask that for exactly the reason Thezzaruz described above. Just because something seems clear to you, does not in itself make it clear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
#1 explorer’s clothing is treated as armor, or else you can't add runes.
This is the problem.
The rules say - 'You can't have your cake and eat it'
But if the rules say it looks like a cake, it tastes like a cake, it is treated like a cake but doesn't say it is a cake then by RAW some players still try to have it and eat it.
And technically you can't stop them citing RAW.
My original post showed the interplay of the rules - alas it also exposed a tiny loophole.
It's not a loophole though: if you try treat as cake you can't at the exact same moment also claim it isn't cake: it can't be armor so you can add the runes while simultaneously not be armor to avoid the specific armor rules. Once you pick your poison, you have to stick with it. The issue isn't that either argument can be made, but that BOTH can't be made at the same time: you can claim it isn't specific armor or you can claim it's armor.
Seems to me that explorer's clothing is treated as armor only insofar as allowing you to add runes to it, nothing more.
There's no conflict that I can see, Mark's post notwithstanding.
|
How can you ask that!? He couldn't be more clear...I can ask that for exactly the reason Thezzaruz described above. Just because something seems clear to you, does not in itself make it clear.
The only reason you are asking is because you are unwilling to accept what is before you and looking for a dev to give you an out.
It is not coming.
And I want to say to you, you do ask a lot of thought provoking questions and I appreciate that you ask them. Don't always agree with you but do appreciate the effort to ask.
Seems to me that explorer's clothing is treated as armor only insofar as allowing you to add runes to it, nothing more.
Yes, and the rule for specific armor IS about adding runes, hence why it's relevant. A specific item that is treated as armor as it related to runes sounds like it falls under rules that are about runes and how they work with specific items that are armor.
Please calm down, Zapp. Just because I remain unconvinced is no reason to get so riled up.
Apologies if I'm misreading the nature of your most recent post.
Seems to me that explorer's clothing is treated as armor only insofar as allowing you to add runes to it, nothing more.Yes, and the rule for specific armor IS about adding runes, hence why it's relevant. A specific item that is treated as armor as it related to runes sounds like it falls under rules that are about runes and how they work with specific items that are armor.
I understand that's how you reached your conclusion of intent, I just disagree that the RAW supports it.
I understand that's how you reached your conclusion of intent, I just disagree that the RAW supports it.Seems to me that explorer's clothing is treated as armor only insofar as allowing you to add runes to it, nothing more.Yes, and the rule for specific armor IS about adding runes, hence why it's relevant. A specific item that is treated as armor as it related to runes sounds like it falls under rules that are about runes and how they work with specific items that are armor.
We'll have to disagree then. The errata for staves makes it clear that when you have specific magic items that are treated as something other magic item type that they are also treated as a specific item in that category too. As such, if a specific wand comes out, like the PF1 icicle wand, that acts as a weapon that you'd treat it as a specific weapon JUST like you treat a staff or the robes.
Now they COULD add wording to change it from being clear it works that way to super explicitly clear but I don't think many people need that or would want them to take up page space to do so.
|
|
Sometimes you have to love the rules discussions ...
So what is the current status?
1) The rules clearly state that Armor Property Runes can only added on to armor.
2) Exemption 1 allows armor runes to be added on Explorer Clothing.
3) Exemption 2 disallows to place Armor Property Runes on specific Armor
4) The Robe of the Archmagi is a specific magic item in the Worn Item category and it is explicitly described as +2 greater resilient Explorer Clothes
Does exemption 2 apply?
We had the identical situation for Staves
1) The rules clearly state that Weapon Property Runes can only added on to Weapons.
2) Exemption 1 treats staves as staff weapons and therefore allows adding runes
3) Exemption 2 disallows to place Weapon Property Runes on specific Weapons
Some players and GMs needed an errata as staves were not explicitly listed as specific weapons. This was interpreted by some as a loophole to add property runes.
So the errata created:
4) Exemption 3 disallows to place Weapon Property Runes on staves.
Useful to note and in the exact same vein (just with weapon vs armor), from the CRB errata and FAQ:
then some see it as clear what he means while others will feel reinforced in their opinion as Mark agrees there is an issue and will carry on with their opinion until an explicit errata is done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, if Robes of the Archmagi is just normal Explorer's Clothing with standard potency runes, why can't I replicate its ability to resist and save against Arcane spells with runes as well?
I mean, there's Antimagic, but that works on all magical effects, is a status bonus versus circumstance bonus, and makes a counteract attempt instead of an auto-save, and isn't limited to Arcane spells. Completely different effect.
So, Ravingdork, if you can point out which rune grants this unique effect that isn't listed as a rune anywhere in the book, then we'll concede that it can take other property runes, because then all it is, is a specific armor rune combination that should be easily replicated separatrly. However, I have the feeling you won't be able to accomplish this task. And yes, burden of proof is on you and not us in this case, because you're the one trying to prove something works, not that something doesn't work.
Did I also mention that the robes come in 3 different colors, each having their own alignment requirement to benefit from it? Awfully specific of the item to make this distinction.
I don't believe that has any bearing whatsoever on the discussion at hand, Darksol the Painbringer, and thus my addressing it at strikes me as being quite moot.
Thank you for your latest breakdown, Thod. You just might have me convinced. Nevertheless, I believe it could be made more clear with errata.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't believe that has any bearing whatsoever on the discussion at hand, Darksol the Painbringer, and thus my addressing it at strikes me as being quite moot.
It does, though. Specific magic items have aspects that make them different from other usual magic items. A Holy Avenger isn't the same as a +2 Greater Striking Holy Cold Iron sword, even though a Holy Avenger is described as being essentially this item, it still has other effects which deem it unable to benefit from other property runes you would want to etch onto it.
In this case, instead of it merely being +2 Greater Resilient Explorer's Clothing, it also has an alignment restriction based on its color, as well as a benefit similar to but not identical to another rune of its type. If I replicated the +2 Greater Resilient Explorer's Clothing, not only would it be incorrect to call it a Robes of the Archmagi, I wouldn't be able to add property runes to it, such as Antimagic, nor are there any runes to replicate its effect. (A shame, yes, but not the point.)
Thus, it is a specific item that you cannot adjust in the way you describe.
I believe the more important rule is found on page 444 of the CRB:
Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.In other words: if you need to twist the words of what the rules say to get an interpretation that might, with a lot of wrangling, support what you want to do... that's probably not what the rules mean.
I don't feel that either interpretation falls into "too good to be true," "rules wrangling," or "twisting of words."
My interpretation is strongly supported by RAW, others interpretations appear strongly supported by intent. Both are equally valid beliefs, but for different reasons, and neither strain credibility.
|
|
My interpretation is strongly supported by RAW, others interpretations appear strongly supported by intent.
This is the key point while there is a discussion here.
RAW the Robe of the Archmagi is not Armor. Just to add one more bit to show it isn't armor:
Other Worn Items
These are a wide variety of items you wear. Armor appears in its own section on page 555[b], and apex items that can increase ability scores are on page 603.
RAI explorers outfit gets an exemption so unarmored players are not disadvantaged.
Then we have the following that causes the issue:
SPECIFIC ARMOR AND WEAPONS
Unlike armor and weapons enhanced with runes, specific armor and weapons (such as ghoul hide or a holy avenger) are created for a specific purpose and can work quite differently from other items of their type. Specific magic armor and weapons can’t gain property runes, but you can add or improve their fundamental runes.
RAI this should apply to any specific magic item. So why did they write Armor and weapons? Because the intent is - you add armor potency runes on armor and weapon potency runes on weapons - it is even in the naming.
It creates loopholes in RAW if suddenly a non-weapon becomes a weapon or a non-armor becomes armor. We had it with staves. Who hasn't seen a magic staff with a shifting rune. Paizo corrected staves in their errata. For worn items - the Robe of the Archmagi is the only item I'm aware off that suffers the same issue - just being 'treated as armor' means the errata doesn't apply.
Probably the safest option would be to errata the box on page 581.
SPECIFIC ARMOR AND WEAPONS
Unlike armor and weapons enhanced with runes, specific armor and weapons or specific items that can be used as armor or weapons (such as ghoul hide or a holy avenger or a staff or fire) are created for a specific purpose and can work quite differently from other items of their type. Specific magic armor and weapons or specific items that can be used as armor or weapons can’t gain property runes, but you can add or improve their fundamental runes.