Armor Effects for Non-Armored Characters

[MarkB]

With all this talk about "enchanted" clothing, I'm loosing my mind.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=178337

What, you've never seen a wizard cast charm pants before?

 

[Infiniti2000]

What, you've never seen a wizard cast charm pants before?

Not since high school a long long time ago.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Well, the masterwork tool says "if any", so it's not necessary to find a skill it applies to. But, note that you'll be far better off with a cold weather outfit.

Perhaps, but the bonuses stack. Also, what about hot weather?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

With all this talk about "enchanted" clothing, I'm loosing my mind.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=178337

Just because Sean K. Reynolds says something doesn't make it true. Wizards were enchanting things long before D&D appeared.

 

[Sejs]

With all this talk about "enchanted" clothing, I'm loosing my mind.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=178337

Enchanted. Bearing an enchantment.

Enchantment (noun) ... 3: a magical spell [syn: bewitchment].

So nya.

 

[Pyrex]

I think the telling question is, does a shirt or robe have an armour bonus of +0? If it does, it's armour and can be enchanted. If it doesn't, it's not, and can't be.

Mechanically speaking; how is thick coat different enough from a suit of padded armor as to prevent it from being enchanted?

Similarly, why does the padded armor disallow certain monk bonuses but the thick coat doesn't?

The only real difference is the change from +0 to +1 Armor bonus.

Unless you want to argue a mystical difference between +0 Armor bonus and (n/a) Armor Bonus.

 

[Artoomis]

Because of game-balance changes this introduces, I'd allow it only after some significant additional cost.

I don't really know how much. Perhaps an additonal feat? Maybe even a Creation Feat plus some sort of cost for wearing it - another feat even? I don't know.

Something significant, anyway.

After all, this is an attempt to get all kinds of bonuses that can only be applied to armor with any penalties associated with wearing armor.

Like so many things, it would be up to the DM to figure it out.

 

[frankthedm]

Aftyer all, this is an attempt to get all kinds of bonuses that can only be applied to armor with any penalties associated with wearing armor.

But were not those bonuses supposed to be balanced in comparison to enhancement bonuses to AC?

If not, then the bonus costed abilities are undercosted in the first place

Or maybe the problem is the Magic Vestment spell . If it is not balanced for a monk to have enhanced cloaths, the spell is the problem.

It is true that the cost to armor up cloth would be far less the bracers of armor. Though the bracers do add to touch AC vs incoporeal attacks. When that matters, it matters.

 

[Artoomis]

But were not those bonuses supposed to be balanced in comparison to enhancement bonuses to AC?

Perhaps so, but many are not available through any other means.

...

Or maybe the problem is the Magic Vestment spell . If it is not balanced for a monk to have enhanced cloaths, the spell is the problem...

The Magic Vestment spell sets no precedent - it applies only for the purpose of THAT spell, and that spell only.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Perhaps, but the bonuses stack.

No, they wouldn't. They're "essentially the same source." I would not allow +10 for wearing two cold weather outfits, though quite frankly I wouldn't allow wearing two cold weather outfits in the first place.

Also, what about hot weather?

You mean like wearing a turban in the desert?

An interesting twist, though, now that you mention hot weather--does enhancing the masterwork clothing to have a +1 armor bonus (e.g.) make that clothing "armor" for other purposes? Note the heat danger: "Those wearing heavy clothing or any sort of armor take a -4 penalty on their saves." Does something that grants a positive armor bonus* count as 'any sort of armor'?

* I'm being purposefully redundant. Bonus is by definition positive in D&D.