Armor Effects for Non-Armored Characters

[starwed]

It is true that the cost to armor up cloth would be far less the bracers of armor.

Wait, what? If X is the increase in AC, then the prices are:
Bracers of armor +X: X^2 * 1000gp
Armor +X: X^2 * 1000gp

Looks like the clothes are actually marginally more expensive, since you have to include the base price for MW clothes, whatever the DM decides that is. ^_^

Also note that bracers of armor go up to +8, while you can only get the clothes up to +5. And as mentioned, bracers protect against the incorp touch attacks. So you are sacrificing something in return for the ability to get those extra armor enhancements.

 

[Infiniti2000]

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

The key to that discussion is that they were playtested on armor, which has other penalties. That's why Artoomis suggests additional cost, such as a special material that would effectively remove the normal armor-related penalties (e.g. movement, ASF, etc.). Maybe the additional cost is low, but I don't think it should be zero.

 

[frankthedm]

The magic vestments spell is however where the idea of enhancing clothing can become a problem. other than that, the wearer of armor cloth loses out a lot in the deal since ghost touch come build in for free with armor derived from force if i am reading that correctly.

Bracers of Armor
These items appear to be wrist or arm guards. They surround the wearer with an invisible but tangible field of force, granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8, just as though he were wearing armor. Both bracers must be worn for the magic to be effective.

Moderate conjuration; CL 7th; Craft Wondrous Item, mage armor, creator’s caster level must be at least two times that of the bonus placed in the bracers; Price 1,000 gp (+1), 4,000 gp (+2), 9,000 gp (+3), 16,000 gp (+4), 25,000 gp (+5), 36,000 gp (+6), 49,000 gp (+7), 64,000 gp (+8);Weight 1 lb.

Armor cost tables.
+1 armor 1,000 gp
+2 armor 4,000 gp
+3 armor 9,000 gp
+4 armor 16,000 gp
+5 armor 25,000 gp
+6 armor/1. 36,000 gp
+7 armor/1. 49,000 gp
+8 armor/1. 64,000 gp
+9 armor/1. 81,000 gp
+10 armor/1. 100,000 gp
1. Armor and shields can’t actually have bonuses this high. Use these lines to determine price when special abilities are added in.

Glamered +2,700 gp
Fortification, light +1 bonus
Slick +3,750 gp
Shadow +3,750 gp
Silent moves +3,750 gp
Spell resistance (13) +2 bonus
Slick, improved +15,000 gp
Shadow, improved +15,000 gp
Silent moves, improved +15,000 gp
Acid resistance +18,000 gp
Cold resistance +18,000 gp
Electricity resistance +18,000 gp
Fire resistance +18,000 gp
Sonic resistance +18,000 gp
Ghost touch +3 bonus
Invulnerability +3 bonus
Fortification, moderate +3 bonus
Spell resistance (15) +3 bonus
Wild +3 bonus
Slick, greater +33,750 gp
Shadow, greater +33,750 gp
Silent moves, greater +33,750 gp
Acid resistance, improved +42,000 gp
Cold resistance, improved +42,000 gp
Electricity resistance, improved +42,000 gp
Fire resistance, improved +42,000 gp
Sonic resistance, improved +42,000 gp
Spell resistance (17) +4 bonus
Etherealness +49,000 gp
Undead controlling +49,000 gp
Fortification, heavy +5 bonus
Spell resistance (19) +5 bonus
Acid resistance, greater +66,000 gp
Cold resistance, greater +66,000 gp
Electricity resistance, greater +66,000 gp
Fire resistance, greater +66,000 gp
Sonic resistance, greater +66,000 gp

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

Well, I'd interpret it as providing a +7 bonus, since +5 is from it being heavy clothing, and +2 is from it being cleverly designed (and properly used--hence the skill check). But that's probably a matter of taste.

Edit: come to think of it, it's not even really the same source. +5 to Fort saves is from wearing a cold weather outfit, and +2 to Fort saves is from a skill check. That the skill check includes a bonus derived from the same garment seems to be to be somewhat immaterial. The masterwork nature of the garment doesn't provide a +2 bonus to Fort saves, it provides a +2 bonus to Survival, which provides a +2 bonus to Fort saves. You could make the survival check while wearing a non-masterwork cold weather outfit and gain +7 to your save. What's so odd about a cold weather outfit designed to make the check easier?

You mean like wearing a turban in the desert?

Or any of a number of methods of designing clothing to reflect light, wick moisture to the surface, and ventilate the skin. Stuff that Bob the 1st level tailor probably isn't skilled enough to design, but Ishmael the master outfitter probably does all the time.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Like I said, Dr. Awkward, your approach is not unreasonable.

Can you respond to the other point I made about being 'counted' as armor?

 

[Hypersmurf]

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'?

Of course, if it counts as armor, then monks lose all those abilities when wearing it...

-Hyp.

 

[Mr. Patient]

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

Burning pants has been one of our favorite 1st-level spells for years.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Like I said, Dr. Awkward, your approach is not unreasonable.

Can you respond to the other point I made about being 'counted' as armor?

Well, going back to my original point, I'd take the benchmark for whether something is armour as being whether or not it provides a non-magical armour bonus, even if that bonus is +0. So if a shirt provided a bonus of +0 to AC, it would provide a -4 penalty to Fort saves versus high environmental temperatures, and would be enchantable. I think that is a pretty good argument that most clothing provides no armour bonus of any kind, and is therefore unenchantable.

However, since heavy clothing does inflict the -4 penalty to Fort saves, it might indeed provide a +0 armour bonus. Not that I'm claiming it does, but we basically have a single test here by which one can determine whether something he's wearing is armour, without actually attempting to enchant it: wear it in the desert. If your T-shirt gives you a -4 penalty, you can enchant it. If your fur coat does, it might or might not be enchantable.

Edit: just to be clear, I don't think you could enchant masterwork clothing unless it was already armour. So if you have a masterwork shirt that doesn't provide an armour bonus, you couldn't make it a +1 shirt, turning it into armour, because the enchantment only works on armour to begin with.

And of course, bracers of armour (and the like) don't count as armour even though they provide a magical armour bonus, so they don't cause you to suffer the +4 penalty. Which is why I stipulate that to be armour, it must provide a non-magical armour bonus.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Not that I'm claiming it does, but we basically have a single test here by which one can determine whether something he's wearing is armour, without actually attempting to enchant it: wear it in the desert. If your T-shirt gives you a -4 penalty, you can enchant it. If your fur coat does, it might or might not be enchantable.

I think the simpler test is to give it to the party monk.

If he has a speed of 60, but when he puts on your t-shirt, he has a speed of 30, it's armor.

-Hyp.

 

[Stalker0]

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.

Actually, that's not true. Bracers of armor cost the same amount as it take to add +s to armor.

+2 cloth would cost 4000 gp + the masterwork cost. Bracers of Armor +2 cost 4000 gp and work against incoporeal creatures. It sounds like I'm getting the shaft with enchanted clothes, not a benefit