Wearing / investing multiple armors

[gesalt]

Strictly speaking, we already know you technically wear padded armor under heavy armor.

What I want to know, is if you can invest and wear multiple armors at once to take advantage of extra armor runes or, more pertinently, the new Library Robes in treasure vault.

[breithauptclan]

I'm not actually seeing it written explicitly one way or the other.

Yes, there is the Padded Armor that says that it is worn along with heavy armor. It seems to be the only armor that says anything like that. But I can't tell if that is a precedent for a general rule allowing wearing multiple armors, or an override of an unstated general rule preventing wearing multiple armors.

Personally, I wouldn't allow it. I see armor as having an implicit "Usage: worn (armor)" entry, and the Padded Armor is an override of that which only has any effect when you take off the heavy armor.

[gesalt]

If the restriction is unstated then I'm going to go with the "it doesn't exist" interpretation. Not like we haven't seen clerics wearing robes/vestments over their armor in art (maybe even pathfinder art but idr) so why not everyone else.

[Baarogue]

are "Library Robes" a specific worn item? Can you share the exact text of this item?

The restriction breith mentioned is not unstated. It is on CR 535 under Usage > Held or Worn

Quote:

An item that needs to be worn to function lists “worn” as its usage. This is followed by another word if the character is limited to only one of that type of item. For instance, a character can wear any number of rings, so the entry for a ring would list only “worn.” However, if the Usage entry were “worn cloak,” then a character couldn’t wear another cloak on top of that one. It’s assumed that items are meant to be worn by humanoids; any item that can or must be worn by a different type of creature either states this in its description or has the companion trait. Most magic items a character must wear have the invested trait, as described on page 531.

The full rules for Investing Magic Items <- are here. I'm only going to quote this bit:

Invest an Item wrote:

Invest an Item

Source Core Rulebook pg. 531 4.0
You invest your energy in an item with the invested trait as you don it. This process requires 1 or more Interact actions, usually taking the same amount of time it takes to don the item. Once you’ve Invested the Item, you benefit from its constant magical abilities as long as you meet its other requirements (for most invested items, the only other requirement is that you must be wearing the item). This investiture lasts until you remove the item.

You can invest no more than 10 items per day. If you remove an invested item, it loses its investiture. The item still counts against your daily limit after it loses its investiture. You reset the limit during your daily preparations, at which point you Invest your Items anew. If you’re still wearing items you had invested the previous day, you can typically keep them invested on the new day, but they still count against your limit.

So if two items have "usage: worn (armor)" then you 1, can't wear both of them and 2, can't invest both of them at once because you lose investiture upon removal of either

SO, IF these robes that I can't see yet because I buy physical books because of Reasons (mostly nerdy ones) have "usage: worn (armor)" then you can't wear them with other magical armor. IF they have some other usage entry, we'd have to see what that is to judge the situation

The exception for Padded Armor is mentioned on CR 276 under Padded Armor

Quote:

Heavy armor comes with a padded armor undercoat included in its Price, though it loses the comfort trait when worn under heavy armor. You can wear just that padded armor undercoat to sleep in, if your heavy armor is destroyed, or when otherwise not wearing the full heavy armor. This allows you to keep the armor invested and benefit from the power of any runes on the associated heavy armor, but no one else can wear your heavy armor without the padded undercoat.

[breithauptclan]

Baarogue wrote:

So if two items have "usage: worn (armor)" then you 1, can't wear both of them and 2, can't invest both of them at once

That is the part that is the unstated assumption in the rules. I looked for that specifically and didn't find any armor that had a "Usage:" line at all.

[graystone]

breithauptclan wrote:

Baarogue wrote:

So if two items have "usage: worn (armor)" then you 1, can't wear both of them and 2, can't invest both of them at once

That is the part that is the unstated assumption in the rules. I looked for that specifically and didn't find any armor that had a "Usage:" line at all.

It is on nethys, and it's "the official home of the Pathfinder Second Edition system reference documents".

[Baarogue]

breithauptclan wrote:

Baarogue wrote:

So if two items have "usage: worn (armor)" then you 1, can't wear both of them and 2, can't invest both of them at once

That is the part that is the unstated assumption in the rules. I looked for that specifically and didn't find any armor that had a "Usage:" line at all.

In my book every armor on pages 555-558, which includes precious material armors, basic magic armor, and specific magic armors, has "Usage: worn armor"

[gesalt]

It does indeed say worn armor in TV. Oh well.

I guess the only remaining lines of argument would be regular magic armor not having the "worn: armor" text and a logic-based argument about something in the unarmored category being able to fit under heavy armor if padded armor from the light armor category can.

[breithauptclan]

graystone wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

Baarogue wrote:

So if two items have "usage: worn (armor)" then you 1, can't wear both of them and 2, can't invest both of them at once

That is the part that is the unstated assumption in the rules. I looked for that specifically and didn't find any armor that had a "Usage:" line at all.

It is on nethys, and it's "the official home of the Pathfinder Second Edition system reference documents".

Still not seeing it.

For example: Leather Armor

No Usage line.

Not that I am unhappy about having "Usage: worn armor" in the description. I wouldn't allow multiple armor wearing anyway.

[graystone]

breithauptclan wrote:

Still not seeing it.

Look here. Specific Magic Armor The base armors don't mention it, because they are basic armors: and here too precious material armors and Basic Magic Armor

[breithauptclan]

Well cool.

Sort of.

Because that does leave a bit of a loophole that you could wear mundane armor for the item bonus and a specific magic armor for its effect.

Again, I probably wouldn't allow that - but that is just me.

It also seems like a lot of hoops to jump through for a very marginal benefit. So I don't expect very many people would be trying to argue for it in the first place.

[graystone]

breithauptclan wrote:

Because that does leave a bit of a loophole that you could wear mundane armor for the item bonus and a specific magic armor for its effect.

Again, I probably wouldn't allow that - but that is just me.

It also seems like a lot of hoops to jump through for a very marginal benefit. So I don't expect very many people would be trying to argue for it in the first place.

Well, it kind of makes sense in some cases: I can't see why you couldn't wear clothes [like explorers/gi] and a breastplate/armored coat. Now if you're trying to wear full plate and splint mail it makes much less sense.

[Baarogue]

gesalt wrote:

It does indeed say worn armor in TV. Oh well.

I guess the only remaining lines of argument would be regular magic armor not having the "worn: armor" text and a logic-based argument about something in the unarmored category being able to fit under heavy armor if padded armor from the light armor category can.

regular magic armor does include "Usage: worn armor" in those pages I mentioned. Padded is only an exception for armors which include padded armor as a lining in their description. The line about "nobody else can wear your heavy armor without the padded undercoat" indicates that it only works because the padded armor undercoat is still considered part of the heavy armor it was included with. It doesn't mean you can wear any light armor you want underneath any heavy armor you choose

[breithauptclan]

Even a setup like Hide armor and Electric Eelskin would be rather strange to try and describe.

Yeah, I wouldn't have any problems with wearing clothes under armor. Even Explorer's Clothes. As long as there wasn't any mechanical benefit combining to it. Any of the properties and benefits of the clothing worn under the armor would be suppressed while you are wearing armor over it.

[gesalt]

Baarogue wrote:

gesalt wrote:

It does indeed say worn armor in TV. Oh well.

I guess the only remaining lines of argument would be regular magic armor not having the "worn: armor" text and a logic-based argument about something in the unarmored category being able to fit under heavy armor if padded armor from the light armor category can.

regular magic armor does include "Usage: worn armor" in those pages I mentioned. Padded is only an exception for armors which include padded armor as a lining in their description. The line about "nobody else can wear your heavy armor without the padded undercoat" indicates that it only works because the padded armor undercoat is still considered part of the heavy armor it was included with. It doesn't mean you can wear any light armor you want underneath any heavy armor you choose

Didn't see it when I posted, but yeah that's the nail in the coffin.

[Outl]

The only place where it's explicitly allowed is in the description of Tear-Away Clothing. You should be able to wear Tear-Away Library Robes over either a magic robe or a leather armor.

I believe it's common to wear armor over or with basic clothing. Because Winter Clothing wouldn't be very useful if you couldn't.

I suspect that those two situations are the reason why basic armor has an implicit, rather than explicit, usage entry.

In any other case -- for instance plate mail over studded leather -- it is unlikely to be allowed, even without any actual rules reference.