Why Bracers of Armor over Explorer's Clothing?


Advice


Especially as only the latter lets you put on property runes, but not the former?

Is it just aesthetically more popular and/or convenient?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The only differences I can find are;

Bracers of Armour mention that they can have talismans affixed to them as if they are light armour (explorer's clothing isn't armour and is missing that provision for talismans).

Bracers of Armour can also be worn in addition to other clothing - so you can wear fine clothing or winter clothing while still getting the benefits of fundamental runes.

You can also be naked and protected with bracers of armour, if that is a thing you need. (I could see a particularly paranoid PC keeping the bracers on in the bath).

The final thing is price (keeping in mind that each tier of bracers has the effects of potency and resilient runes)

Bracers / Runes
+1 450 gp / 160 gp + 340 gp = 500 gp
+2 4,000 gp / 1,060 gp + 3,440 gp = 4,500 gp
+3 60,000 gp / 20,560 gp + 49,440 gp = 70,000 gp

As you can see, bracers are generally noticeably cheaper than the potency + resilient rune that is equivalent.


One reason I do it is Corrosive Runes. One critical hit from a corrosive rune destroys your explorer's clothing and your runes. Whereas Bracers of armor count as a worn magic item and don't get destroyed easily by armor destroying abilities.

Then you have to worry about whether a DM will let you recover the runes and put them on new clothing during downtime or if you just straight up lost all your invested money because your armor was destroyed. Anything less than steel armor get nuked by corrosive runes or similar armor destroying abilities.


Given golds and time, explorer's clothings are always better because you can benefit from the proper upgrade when the time comes.

The bracers kicks in at any level you could get a resilient rune upgrade, resulting in the character needing to wait 2 or 3 levels to benefit from the AC bonus.

If you are poor for whatever reason ( greedy DM, no downtime activities, no additional loots from AP, specific setting which doesn't allow the characters to gain gold or to use them, etc... ), then you may probably get the upgrades by the time the bracers become available.

Runes are also something nice you'd lose ooif you go with bracers.

Don't mind about corrosibe stuff, since the DM won't be able to proceed until characters get their stuff back, and I couldn't find a good reason not to give players the possibility to salvage runes from broken armor or weapon, to simply speed things up ( meaning there's no reason to slow them down, making them go back to the town to do downtime activities to buy new runes, as well as proceed without runes. It doesn't add anything but frustration).


Tender Tendrils wrote:
explorer's clothing isn't armour and is missing that provision for talismans

Hmm... I had never read the description of explorer's clothing that way. I can see the reason for ruling it that way, but I don't think that was intended. I certainly don't see any good game balance reason to run explorer's clothing that way.

Explorer's Clothing wrote:
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.

I had always interpreted this as meaning that for proficiency calculations, Explorer's clothing doesn't count as armor and therefore uses your unarmored proficiency. But since Explorer's clothing is a separate entry from Unarmored and is in the armor table, that it does count as armor for other things that interact with armor - such as talismans and armor potency and property runes. That is why it doesn't actually say that it is permitted to etch Explorer's clothing with armor potency runes (because that ability is assumed) it just lists that the clothing does grant an AC bonus once the rune has been etch on it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:

One reason I do it is Corrosive Runes. One critical hit from a corrosive rune destroys your explorer's clothing and your runes. Whereas Bracers of armor count as a worn magic item and don't get destroyed easily by armor destroying abilities.

Then you have to worry about whether a DM will let you recover the runes and put them on new clothing during downtime or if you just straight up lost all your invested money because your armor was destroyed. Anything less than steel armor get nuked by corrosive runes or similar armor destroying abilities.

Corrosive runes only damage armor.

CRB, p. 583 'Corrosive Rune' wrote:
...on a critical hit, the target’s armor (if any) takes 3d6 acid damage...

They don't damage Explorer's Clothing because it isn't armor.

CRB, p. 276 'Explorer's Clothing' wrote:
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.
CRB, p. 287 'Clothing' wrote:
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.
CRB, p. 556, 'Armor Alternatives' wrote:

ARMOR ALTERNATIVES

If you don’t want to wear armor, or you’re trained in only unarmored defense, you can wear either explorer’s clothing or bracers of armor. Explorer’s clothing can be etched with runes just like armor can, so it can provide item bonuses to AC or saves.
CRB, p. 580 'Runes' wrote:
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.

Note that since Explorer's clothes aren't armor, they don't qualify for Talismans.

CRB, p. 565 'Talismans' wrote:
An item with the talisman trait is a magical charm, gem, stone, or other small object affixed to armor, a shield, or a weapon (called the affixed item).

They wouldn't qualify for Armor Runes either if it weren't for the rules listed above that specifically allow it.


breithauptclan wrote:
But since Explorer's clothing is a separate entry from Unarmored and is in the armor table,...

Explorer's Clothing is listed on the Unarmored Defense Table (Table 6-3), not the Armor Table (Table 6-4).

breithauptclan wrote:
That is why it doesn't actually say that it is permitted to etch Explorer's clothing with armor potency runes (because that ability is assumed) it just lists that the clothing does grant an AC bonus once the rune has been etch on it.

The CRB does explicitly state that you can etch Explorer's Clothing with Armor Runes that aren't specific to light, medium, or heavy armor.

Fundamental Runes are covered here:

CRB, p. 556, 'Armor Alternatives' wrote:

ARMOR ALTERNATIVES

If you don’t want to wear armor, or you’re trained in only unarmored defense, you can wear either explorer’s clothing or bracers of armor. Explorer’s clothing can be etched with runes just like armor can, so it can provide item bonuses to AC or saves.

Both Fundamental and Property Runes are covered here:

CRB, p. 580 'Runes' wrote:
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.


Gisher wrote:
Note that since Explorer's clothes aren't armor, they don't qualify for Talismans.

Wait, are you saying that not half but all talismans are totally useless to (armorless) casters?


Good points. But its perverse to not have corrosive runes doing damage to clothing because they aren't armour.

All that Explorer's Clothes are really saying when it denies that it is armour, is that it is not light medium or heavy armour. It is in fact unarmoured armour, and uses the unarmoured defense proficiency when you wear it.

Which is an odd way to express things, but you can understand the language trap the writers found themselves in.


Gisher wrote:
CRB, p. 556, 'Armor Alternatives' wrote:

ARMOR ALTERNATIVES

If you don’t want to wear armor, or you’re trained in only unarmored defense, you can wear either explorer’s clothing or bracers of armor. Explorer’s clothing can be etched with runes just like armor can, so it can provide item bonuses to AC or saves.

Cool. So there is a place that explicitly allows all armor runes on Explorer's clothing. Good to know.

Gortle wrote:
Good points. But its perverse to not have corrosive runes doing damage to clothing because they aren't armour.

Yeah. It is also perverse to say that because it isn't armor then you can't put talismans on them.

Which ever way you rule it for your games, you should at the very least keep it consistent for these two cases.

Personally, I rule it that Explorer's clothing is a form of armor that uses unarmored proficiency. That is what makes the most sense to me.


If explorer's clothing can't have talismans affixed, wouldn't that also mean they couldn't have spellhearts, either?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Errenor wrote:
Gisher wrote:
Note that since Explorer's clothes aren't armor, they don't qualify for Talismans.
Wait, are you saying that not half but all talismans are totally useless to (armorless) casters?

No. Armorless characters can attach talismans to shields or weapons like anyone else.

But you can't attach an armor talisman to something that isn't armor. The exception is bracers of armor because they have text granting them that option.

But Explorer's Clothes aren't armor and they don't have an exception, do you can't attach talismans to Explorer's Clothes.


breithauptclan wrote:
Gisher wrote:
CRB, p. 556, 'Armor Alternatives' wrote:

ARMOR ALTERNATIVES

If you don’t want to wear armor, or you’re trained in only unarmored defense, you can wear either explorer’s clothing or bracers of armor. Explorer’s clothing can be etched with runes just like armor can, so it can provide item bonuses to AC or saves.
Cool. So there is a place that explicitly allows all armor runes on Explorer's clothing. Good to know.

Some armor runes. Not all.

CRB, p. 580 'Runes' wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
Gisher wrote:
CRB, p. 556, 'Armor Alternatives' wrote:

ARMOR ALTERNATIVES

If you don’t want to wear armor, or you’re trained in only unarmored defense, you can wear either explorer’s clothing or bracers of armor. Explorer’s clothing can be etched with runes just like armor can, so it can provide item bonuses to AC or saves.
Cool. So there is a place that explicitly allows all armor runes on Explorer's clothing. Good to know.

Some armor runes. Not all.

CRB, p. 580 'Runes' wrote:
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.

Yes, there are specific runes that require a particular type of armor that Explorer's clothes wouldn't qualify for. But I thought there was some implication that you could only use fundamental runes or even only potency runes on Explorer's clothing because that is all that the Explorer's clothing said had any effect.

But the rule on Armor Alternatives says that runes (in general) can be etched on Explorer's clothes. Even though some specific runes won't work. But there are not entire categories of runes that won't work.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:

Good points. But its perverse to not have corrosive runes doing damage to clothing because they aren't armour.

All that Explorer's Clothes are really saying when it denies that it is armour, is that it is not light medium or heavy armour. It is in fact unarmoured armour, and uses the unarmoured defense proficiency when you wear it.

Which is an odd way to express things, but you can understand the language trap the writers found themselves in.

It isn't armor. I already cited multiple places where Explorer's Clothes are explicitly said to not be armor. Let's consider another problem with the "unarmored armor" claim.

As I mentioned earlier, there are two tables on page 275 of the CRB. Table 6-3 lists methods of unarmored defense, and Table 6-4 lists types of armor. Explorer's Clothes are listed on the unarmored defense table rather than the one for armor.

The position that Explorer's Clothes is armor and is on Table 6-3 solely because it uses the unarmed defense proficiencies is directly contradicted by the description of Table 6-3 which says:

CRB, p.274 'Armor Statistics' wrote:
Table 6–3: Unarmored Defense provides the statistics for the various forms of protection without wearing armor.

So, once again, the CRB says that Explorer's Clothes aren't armor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:

Yes, there are specific runes that require a particular type of armor that Explorer's clothes wouldn't qualify for. But I thought there was some implication that you could only use fundamental runes or even only potency runes on Explorer's clothing because that is all that the Explorer's clothing said had any effect.

But the rule on Armor Alternatives says that runes (in general) can be etched on Explorer's clothes. Even though some specific runes won't work. But there are not entire categories of runes that won't work.

I see. No they aren't restricted to fundamental or potency runes. I have a breakdown of rune options that you might find useful.

Runes

(Although I just realized that I need to update it for Secrets of Magic.)


Perpdepog wrote:
If explorer's clothing can't have talismans affixed, wouldn't that also mean they couldn't have spellhearts, either?

Yes. Explorer's Clothes are neither armor nor a weapon so Spellhearts are out.


Gisher wrote:
Gortle wrote:

Good points. But its perverse to not have corrosive runes doing damage to clothing because they aren't armour.

It isn't armor.

I didn't deny that the rules said that. Just that it seems stupid. If the rules make sense to you, or you are happy to play them exactly like that, then fine. Personally I will be ignoring the distinction. Corrosive Runes and Talismans are a tiny part of the game.

Besides you could always just wear a non magical bracer - if such a thing exists - as part or your attire and attach a Talisman to that. So there is little point in making the distinction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
Gisher wrote:
Gortle wrote:

Good points. But its perverse to not have corrosive runes doing damage to clothing because they aren't armour.

It isn't armor.
I didn't deny that the rules said that.

You stated that it was a fact that it is unarmored armor.

Gortle wrote:
It is in fact unarmoured armour, and uses the unarmoured defense proficiency when you wear it.

If you had stated that, in fact, it isn't armor but that you prefer to houserule it to be unarmored armor, I wouldn't have argued with your statement.

Gortle wrote:
Besides you could always just wear a non magical bracer - if such a thing exists - as part or your attire and attach a Talisman to that. So there is little point in making the distinction.

Non-magical bracers wouldn't be armor and wouldn't benefit from the exception made for magical bracers, so I don't see how they would offer a workaround for armor talismans.


So the presence of an oxymoron didn't tip you that some interpretation was required?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
Errenor wrote:
Gisher wrote:
Note that since Explorer's clothes aren't armor, they don't qualify for Talismans.
Wait, are you saying that not half but all talismans are totally useless to (armorless) casters?

No. Armorless characters can attach talismans to shields or weapons like anyone else.

Yes, that's what I meant, useless. Weapon/shield talismans are either totally unusable due to requirements or of very limited efficiency to squishy casters which are also unskilled in weapons (expert at 11th lvl if you've forgotten) and ineffective due to low strength and focus elsewhere in combat maneuvers.


Gisher wrote:
Gortle wrote:

Good points. But its perverse to not have corrosive runes doing damage to clothing because they aren't armour.

All that Explorer's Clothes are really saying when it denies that it is armour, is that it is not light medium or heavy armour. It is in fact unarmoured armour, and uses the unarmoured defense proficiency when you wear it.

Which is an odd way to express things, but you can understand the language trap the writers found themselves in.

It isn't armor. I already cited multiple places where Explorer's Clothes are explicitly said to not be armor. Let's consider another problem with the "unarmored armor" claim.

As I mentioned earlier, there are two tables on page 275 of the CRB. Table 6-3 lists methods of unarmored defense, and Table 6-4 lists types of armor. Explorer's Clothes are listed on the unarmored defense table rather than the one for armor.

The position that Explorer's Clothes is armor and is on Table 6-3 solely because it uses the unarmed defense proficiencies is directly contradicted by the description of Table 6-3 which says:

CRB, p.274 'Armor Statistics' wrote:
Table 6–3: Unarmored Defense provides the statistics for the various forms of protection without wearing armor.
So, once again, the CRB says that Explorer's Clothes aren't armor.

How does PFS rule for clothing and corrosive runes?

My DM rules clothing gets destroyed by corrosive runes. So this will vary by table.

If your DM doesn't destroy your armored clothing with corrosive runes, then they are equal with bracers for the most part. If your DM rules that Explorer's Clothing gets nuked by corrosive runes and other armor destroying abilities then I prefer bracers.

And of course an official answer from Paizo would be lovely, but likely not forthcoming.


Errenor wrote:
Gisher wrote:
Errenor wrote:
Gisher wrote:
Note that since Explorer's clothes aren't armor, they don't qualify for Talismans.
Wait, are you saying that not half but all talismans are totally useless to (armorless) casters?

No. Armorless characters can attach talismans to shields or weapons like anyone else.

Yes, that's what I meant, useless. Weapon/shield talismans are either totally unusable due to requirements or of very limited efficiency to squishy casters which are also unskilled in weapons (expert at 11th lvl if you've forgotten) and ineffective due to low strength and focus elsewhere in combat maneuvers.

Grim Trophy is a nice item for a Charisma caster. But talismans are usable with Bracers which also makes bracers superior.


Deriven Firelion wrote:


Grim Trophy is a nice item for a Charisma caster.

Yes, it's also an armor talisman. Which is not what was discussed. There are a lot of armor talismans useful for casters with some skills, but not weapon and shield.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is it possible to wear the clothing for runes, and the basic bracers for talisman?


Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Is it possible to wear the clothing for runes, and the basic bracers for talisman?

I think technically you could, but you're in the 'only the best applies' bit. Plus you're spending an awful lot of level two or three gold to double up on magic armour to begin with. And if you wait until later, the basic Bracers will likely be suppressed by the superior explorer's clothes. Same as if you tried to mix the bracers with, say, actual armour.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Qaianna wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Is it possible to wear the clothing for runes, and the basic bracers for talisman?
I think technically you could, but you're in the 'only the best applies' bit. Plus you're spending an awful lot of level two or three gold to double up on magic armour to begin with. And if you wait until later, the basic Bracers will likely be suppressed by the superior explorer's clothes. Same as if you tried to mix the bracers with, say, actual armour.

I think that's the point: wear the clothes for runes, but also AC since it's only basic bracers worn to get access to talismans. I can't say I find talismans valuable enough on their own, but after awhile it'll be a pittance to get the cheapest bracers and a talisman too.

It feels a bit on the side of shenanigans IMO, yet I'd likely approve as long as someone didn't try to use it as a premise to get bracers and actual armor so as to prep two armor talismans.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Qaianna wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Is it possible to wear the clothing for runes, and the basic bracers for talisman?
I think technically you could, but you're in the 'only the best applies' bit. Plus you're spending an awful lot of level two or three gold to double up on magic armour to begin with. And if you wait until later, the basic Bracers will likely be suppressed by the superior explorer's clothes. Same as if you tried to mix the bracers with, say, actual armour.

And if you wanted to do this, you'd be better served getting a talisman cord instead.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / Why Bracers of Armor over Explorer's Clothing? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.