Armor Effects for Non-Armored Characters

[ValhallaGH]

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.

If a monk is wearing a coat that has a +0 AC bonus then said monk loses access to about half of his class features.

Why?

Because those features don't work while wearing armor, and something that grants a +0 armor bonus to defense is armor.

 

[irdeggman]

I believe that Hyp has the main problem with counting clothing as armor in the fact that a monk can't wear any kind of armor and still retain his class abilities (like fast movement).

So if it armor with a +0 AC bonus then monks need to be running around naked.

You can't really allow clothing to count as armor for certain aspects without having it count as armor for all aspects - well not IMO anyway.

Also the cost for MW armor is +150 gp (doesn't matter what kind of armor), it is the same cost for a shield regardless of type.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So if it armor with a +0 AC bonus then monks need to be running around naked.

Well, hey - the less you wear, the harder it be for them to see ya...!

You can't really allow clothing to count as armor for certain aspects without having it count as armor for all aspects - well not IMO anyway.

To be fair, the rules already do count clothing as armor for certain things without having it count for all - the Magic Vestment spell, noted earlier in the thread, considers clothing to be armor with a +0 armor bonus, but nothing else in the core rules does.

Frank has mentioned the A&EG ruling, which allowed Bracers to have armor special abilities added. If you incorporate this ruling, you can craft the wondrous item +1 Bracers of Armor (Light Fortification), for example... and presumably, you could produce a wondrous item +1 Shirt of Armor (Light Fortification) by reslotting the Bracers and potentially paying an inappropriate slot surcharge. As a wondrous item, this would not be considered armor (just like Bracers), and would not inconvenience a monk.

(A cloak or amulet [Protection] or possibly a robe [Multiple Effects] would be appropriate slots; I don't think a shirt [Physical Improvement] would be.)

But this only works if your DM allows a/ the A&EG ruling, and b/ reslotting of wondrous items.

-Hyp.

 

[irdeggman]

Well, hey - the less you wear, the harder you are to see...!

Shades of the "naked druid" shape change errata.

To be fair, the rules already do count clothing as armor for certain things without having it count for all - the Magic Vestment spell, noted earlier in the thread, considers clothing to be armor with a +0 armor bonus, but nothing else in the core rules does.

But the text also says "for the purposes of this spell" which flat out gives a specific usage and not a general one. So magical vestement, technically can't be cast on a monk's clothing without having the monk lose class abilities since the clothing is now:

"An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus fpr the purpose of this spell."

Frank has mentioned the A&EG ruling, which allowed Bracers to have armor special abilities added. If you incorporate this ruling, you can craft the wondrous item +1 Bracers of Armor (Light Fortification), for example... and presumably, you could produce a wondrous item +1 Shirt of Armor (Light Fortification) by reslotting the Bracers and potentially paying an inappropriate slot surcharge. As a wondrous item, this would not be considered armor (just like Bracers), and would not inconvenience a monk.

(A cloak or amulet [Protection] or possibly a robe [Multiple Effects] would be appropriate slots; I don't think a shirt [Physical Improvement] would be.)

But this only works if your DM allows a/ the A&EG ruling, and b/ reslotting of wondrous items.

-Hyp.

But then it wouldn't be "armor" it would be a wondrous item instead.

 

[Artoomis]

...But then it wouldn't be "armor" it would be a wondrous item instead.

So? You get all the same benefits wihout even having to create a new rule. I like it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But the text also says "for the purposes of this spell" which flat out gives a specific usage and not a general one.

Uh, exactly.

So magical vestement, technically can't be cast on a monk's clothing without having the monk lose class abilities since the clothing is now:

"An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus fpr the purpose of this spell."

It shouldn't bother the monk.

You see, his clothing counts as armor for the purpose of Magic Vestment all the time, whether or not the spell is cast on it. And whether or not the spell is cast on it, the clothing does not count as armor for the purpose of a monk's abilities.

But then it wouldn't be "armor" it would be a wondrous item instead.

Right. That's why I said 'wondrous item' four times.

-Hyp.