Can non-armors, such as an explorer's clothing, hold and benefit from armor property runes?
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"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 226 of GM Core)."
Player Core page 272.
"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."
GM Core page 224.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am going to say that you can't etch an armor rune onto a table leg.
|
Not from the remastered rules, and I'm not even certain where it was pulled from for the Legacy version, but AoN does have a guideline in the Armor Specialization section: Source
Core Rulebook pg. 275 (4.0)
Cloth: Nethys Note: there is no medium or heavy cloth armor, so there is no armor specialization effect for the cloth armor group.
Clothing isn't armor, but if it has a Dex cap it can accept fundamental and property runes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not from the remastered rules, and I'm not even certain where it was pulled from for the Legacy version, but AoN does have a guideline in the Armor Specialization section:Core Rulebook pg. 275 (4.0) Certain class features can grant you additional benefits with certain armors. This is called an armor specialization effect. The exact effect depends on which armor group your armor belongs to, as listed below. Only medium and heavy armors have armor specialization effects.Source
Cloth: Nethys Note: there is no medium or heavy cloth armor, so there is no armor specialization effect for the cloth armor group.
Clothing isn't armor, but if it has a Dex cap it can accept fundamental and property runes.
Did some digging as you got my curious if it was absent in the Remaster.
This is what I was able to find.
Player Core ONLY mentions fundamental runes though, so new players might well believe that property runes aren't an option (and may not think to ask the GM to check the GM Core for guidance).
I haven't updated it for the remaster yet, but my Runes tables show which property runes you can use on explorer's clothing.
Not from the remastered rules, and I'm not even certain where it was pulled from for the Legacy version, but AoN does have a guideline in the Armor Specialization section:Core Rulebook pg. 275 (4.0) Certain class features can grant you additional benefits with certain armors. This is called an armor specialization effect. The exact effect depends on which armor group your armor belongs to, as listed below. Only medium and heavy armors have armor specialization effects.Source
Cloth: Nethys Note: there is no medium or heavy cloth armor, so there is no armor specialization effect for the cloth armor group.
Clothing isn't armor, but if it has a Dex cap it can accept fundamental and property runes.
Did some digging as you got my curious if it was absent in the Remaster.
This is what I was able to find.
Player Core ONLY mentions fundamental runes though, so new players might well believe that property runes aren't an option (and may not think to ask the GM to check the GM Core for guidance).
you can argue that it dont need to mention property runes since Armor Potency rune itself say it allow you to apply one Property rune.
since specific trumps general should that not be enuf?The armor can be etched with one property rune.
but i agree i rather have more text that reiterates or points to other revelant rules then leave some things in the gray.
And because Clothing is not armor, it can't accept talismans or spellhearts, as I understand it.
A big drawback in PF2, since spellhearts were introduced. IME, most characters that lack light armor proficiency will only use explorer's clothing (or, after Treasure Vault, scroll robes) until they can find/afford bands of force; or spend a feat on Armor Proficiency to be able to use both runes and spellhearts.
Before spellhearts, explorer's clothing was considered more valuable because runes were so much better than talismans.
|
|
Or just use Bands of Force instead of clothing for protection:And because Clothing is not armor, it can't accept talismans or spellhearts, as I understand it.A big drawback in PF2, since spellhearts were introduced. IME, most characters that lack light armor proficiency will only use explorer's clothing (or, after Treasure Vault, scroll robes) until they can find/afford bands of force; or spend a feat on Armor Proficiency to be able to use both runes and spellhearts.Or everyone will completely ignore this restriction from the start (if they even knew about it). I haven't heard of anyone who complied with it. I definitely never had.
P.S. Because that's just absurd: you MUST be a caster to cast any spells from spellhearts [because it's Cast a Spell; now it's easier when all dedications allow this though] And then you being a cloth caster can't even affix it to your 'armor'? Unacceptable.
Source GM Core pg. 286Force, Invested, Magical
Usage worn armbands; Bulk L
Decorated with clear gemstones, these thick metal bands spread an inflexible layer of force over your body. The force grants you a +1 item bonus to AC and saving throws, and a maximum Dexterity modifier of +5 as armor. You can affix talismans to the bands as though they were light armor.
Activate—Return Force [reaction] (force, manipulate); Trigger A creature critically misses you with a melee Strike.; Effect You Shove the creature using the bands' Athletics modifier of +14.
This is the way it has been since PF2 launched: If you don't want to or can't use physical armor, you can either use 'Armored Clothing' which sacrifices the use of Talismans - or - 'Bracers/Bands' which sacrifice Property runes.
And because Clothing is not armor, it can't accept talismans or spellhearts, as I understand it.A big drawback in PF2, since spellhearts were introduced. IME, most characters that lack light armor proficiency will only use explorer's clothing (or, after Treasure Vault, scroll robes) until they can find/afford bands of force; or spend a feat on Armor Proficiency to be able to use both runes and spellhearts.Or everyone will completely ignore this restriction from the start (if they even knew about it). I haven't heard of anyone who complied with it. I definitely never had.
P.S. Because that's just absurd: you MUST be a caster to cast any spells from spellhearts [because it's Cast a Spell; now it's easier when all dedications allow this though] And then you being a cloth caster can't even affix it to your 'armor'? Unacceptable.
It's a bit more nuanced than you make it.
Bards, druids, and oracles, for example, have always had proficiency in light armor (and medium for druids) in PF2. Also, taking the Armor Proficiency feat early (1st level human using General Training or as the 3rd level general feat for other ancestries) and then retraining it for something else later was pretty common (probably more common than the "armored wizard" route taking an archetype); if anything, the Remastered version of Armor Proficiency makes it an easier choice since the proficiency scales to Expert at 13th level (so retraining is less necessary).
Non-casters will find spellhearts useful in several cases too, even if they can't cast the spells: several spellhearts grant constant resistance when attached to armor and a beastmaster's sigil attached to a weapon grants a +1 bonus on Athletics checks to trip. They may be a little "overpriced" for non-casters compared to worn items that grant innate spells, but not horribly so (IMO) if you stick to the lower versions (3rd- to 5th-level items, mostly).
And because Clothing is not armor, it can't accept talismans or spellhearts, as I understand it.A big drawback in PF2, since spellhearts were introduced. IME, most characters that lack light armor proficiency will only use explorer's clothing (or, after Treasure Vault, scroll robes) until they can find/afford bands of force; or spend a feat on Armor Proficiency to be able to use both runes and spellhearts.Or everyone will completely ignore this restriction from the start (if they even knew about it). I haven't heard of anyone who complied with it. I definitely never had.
P.S. Because that's just absurd: you MUST be a caster to cast any spells from spellhearts [because it's Cast a Spell; now it's easier when all dedications allow this though] And then you being a cloth caster can't even affix it to your 'armor'? Unacceptable.
It's a bit more nuanced than you make it.
Bards, druids, and oracles, for example, have always had proficiency in light armor (and medium for druids) in PF2. Also, taking the Armor Proficiency feat early (1st level human using General Training or as the 3rd level general feat for other ancestries) and then retraining it for something else later was pretty common (probably more common than the "armored wizard" route taking an archetype); if anything, the Remastered version of Armor Proficiency makes it an easier choice since the proficiency scales to Expert at 13th level (so retraining is less necessary).
Non-casters will find spellhearts useful in several cases too, even if they can't cast the spells: several spellhearts grant constant resistance when attached to armor and a beastmaster's sigil attached to a weapon grants a +1 bonus on Athletics checks to trip. They may be a little "overpriced" for non-casters compared to worn items that grant innate spells, but not horribly so (IMO) if you stick to the lower versions (3rd- to 5th-level items, mostly).
I mean, the Spellheart I see mentioned the most in discussions by Martials is the Phantasmal Doorknob. Free Dazzled on Crit (or Blinded, for the upgraded version) with no save is well worth the asking price.
And because Clothing is not armor, it can't accept talismans or spellhearts, as I understand it.
Why not? I didn't see anything that make Explorer's Clothing different from any other armor in this respect. Did I miss something?
And because Clothing is not armor, it can't accept talismans or spellhearts, as I understand it.Why not? I didn't see anything that make Explorer's Clothing different from any other armor in this respect. Did I miss something?
You missed the item description of explorer's clothing clarifying that while it shares a table with armor, it is not armor at all.
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 226 of GM Core).
Also GM Core listing it as a alternative to armor, not actually armor:
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 bands of force. Explorer’s clothing can be etched with runes just like armor can, so it can provide item bonuses to AC or saves. Bands of force give a +1 item bonus to AC with a Dex modifier cap of +5, and they also grant a bonus to saves. This item can be found on page 286.
Some of this text is already in this thread.
And because Clothing is not armor, it can't accept talismans or spellhearts, as I understand it.Why not? I didn't see anything that make Explorer's Clothing different from any other armor in this respect. Did I miss something?You missed the item description of explorer's clothing clarifying that while it shares a table with armor, it is not armor at all.
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 226 of GM Core).Also GM Core listing it as a alternative to armor, not actually armor:
Some of this text is already in this thread.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 bands of force. Explorer’s clothing can be etched with runes just like armor can, so it can provide item bonuses to AC or saves. Bands of force give a +1 item bonus to AC with a Dex modifier cap of +5, and they also grant a bonus to saves. This item can be found on page 286.
Clothing isn't armor, but if it has a Dex cap it can accept fundamental and property runes.
If it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then it's a confused goose.
There are several mechanics shared with armor. Talisman and spellheart attachment is not one of them. That some mechanics are the same as armor does not imply that other ones must also be.
I'm a pretty big proponent of the idea that an example list does not constitute, replace, or limit the rules that they are an example of. So let me see if I can clarify this.
In the rules for Etched, it states that runes "must be etched onto permanent items, such as armor, shields, weapons, or runestones to grant their benefit."
Armor, shields, weapons, and runestones are not the only items that can have runes etched on them. The Etched trait rule does not restrict a broken table leg or broomstick from having a rune etched on it.
The rules for Wind state "It also interferes with physical ranged attacks such as arrows, imposing a circumstance penalty to attack rolls involving such weapons, and potentially making attacks with them impossible in powerful windstorms."
Arrows are not the only physical ranged attacks that would be affected by the wind. Shuriken, Darts, thrown knives and clubs, and even black powder rounds from firearms all also qualify.
Because in all of these cases, there is a general rule in that rule text that creates and sets the category. The list is just a subset of the entire category used as an example.
An easy way to tell this is that you can remove the example list and still have a valid and useful rule afterwards.
"Runes must be etched onto permanent items to grant their benefit."
"Wind also interferes with physical ranged attacks, imposing a circumstance penalty to attack rolls involving such weapons, and potentially making attacks with them impossible in powerful windstorms."
These rules still work fine, and you can still tell that a Dagger could have a Weapon Rune etched on it, but that a Versatile Vial Bomb couldn't - or that a Dart would be affected by strong wind, but Ignition wouldn't.
Now, for Talismans (and Spellhearts because they explicitly use the same rules) it instead says:
A talisman is a small object affixed to armor, a shield, or a weapon (called the affixed item).
That isn't an example list because there isn't a general categorization rule. If I remove the list, I am left with "A talisman is a small object affixed." Which isn't even a complete sentence. And it certainly doesn't answer the question of if a bathrobe can have a Talisman attached to it or not.
So in this case, the list of items is exhaustive, not an example list. A talisman can only be attached to armor, shields, or weapons.
And since Explorer's Clothes are explicitly categorized as not being Armor, then they do not qualify to have Talismans attached to them.
-----
As a side note, Fulu are also similar to Talismans. Many Fulu are also Talismans and use the Affix a Talisman activity to attach them.
However, Fulu explicitly also have an expanded list of items that they can be attached to.
Fulus are small paper charms that can be affixed to a suit of armor, a shield, a weapon, a creature, or even a structure.
But they still couldn't be attached to a bathrobe or Explorer's Clothing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But they still couldn't be attached to a bathrobe or Explorer's Clothing.
You know full well that someone is going to bring up putting a Tracking Fulu on their favorite bathrobe in case someone steals it.
But they still couldn't be attached to a bathrobe or Explorer's Clothing.You know full well that someone is going to bring up putting a Tracking Fulu on their favorite bathrobe in case someone steals it.
Or a Demolition Fulu.
Or a Demolition Fulu.But they still couldn't be attached to a bathrobe or Explorer's Clothing.You know full well that someone is going to bring up putting a Tracking Fulu on their favorite bathrobe in case someone steals it.
Nah, no one would put that on their own favorite bathrobe.
Nah, no one would put that on their own favorite bathrobe.Or a Demolition Fulu.But they still couldn't be attached to a bathrobe or Explorer's Clothing.You know full well that someone is going to bring up putting a Tracking Fulu on their favorite bathrobe in case someone steals it.
Better to destroy it and leave them naked than have someone else wearing it around. But it's true it's better to put it one someone else's favorite bathrobe. ;)