Chainmail Bikini: AC or Cha bonus?
- Thread starter Iron_Chef
- Start date
RigaMortus
Explorer
Dnd is a fantasy game, and as such, I would apply the same stats as a Chain Shirt. OR if you want to get funky, make the AC bonus equal to her Charisma (if possitive).
Is this realistic? Probably not. But we are talking about Dungeons and Dragons here.
Is this realistic? Probably not. But we are talking about Dungeons and Dragons here.
Savage Wombat
Hero
In the recently published Munchkin DMs Guide, they wrote up the chainmail bikini as a suit of magical armor that gives a +3 magical AC bonus - and allows the wearer to (get this) add her CHA bonus to her CHA.
So the lady with the 18 CHA gets a modified 22 -
and the half-orc with the 6 CHA gets a modified 4.
In seriousness, my wife played a character with a miniature (designed by Elmore, of course) in a chainmail halter top. We just called it a chain shirt and didn't worry about it.
After all, if GURPS can have the "bulletproof nudity" rules, why should we be denied a (potentially) fun game element just out of "realism"?
So the lady with the 18 CHA gets a modified 22 -
and the half-orc with the 6 CHA gets a modified 4.
In seriousness, my wife played a character with a miniature (designed by Elmore, of course) in a chainmail halter top. We just called it a chain shirt and didn't worry about it.
After all, if GURPS can have the "bulletproof nudity" rules, why should we be denied a (potentially) fun game element just out of "realism"?
Spatzimaus
First Post
Not quite as much about the "Chainmail Bikini" part of it, but I like the idea of making a +0 type of armor. Robes, the bikinis, whatever; they're still "armor", they just have a +0 armor bonus. If you want more, you can enchant them just like armor. NWN does this, incidentally, and it avoids the whole shirt+robe+armor stacking issues that 3E allows.
As for the chainmail bikini, it's safe to say that it's not so much the bikini itself that provides the CHA bonus, it's the person wearing it. Ugly people in speedos are still ugly, they're just less shy about it. Wearing practically nothing in a midieval setting is going to give a negative impression as often as positive, and not just on gender-based lines. The DM could decide to give a +2 or -2 circumstance modifier to any Bluff, Diplomacy, etc. checks, but it should be at his discretion.
This isn't to stop you from making a "Chainmail Bikini of Command", of course.
As for the chainmail bikini, it's safe to say that it's not so much the bikini itself that provides the CHA bonus, it's the person wearing it. Ugly people in speedos are still ugly, they're just less shy about it. Wearing practically nothing in a midieval setting is going to give a negative impression as often as positive, and not just on gender-based lines. The DM could decide to give a +2 or -2 circumstance modifier to any Bluff, Diplomacy, etc. checks, but it should be at his discretion.
This isn't to stop you from making a "Chainmail Bikini of Command", of course.
How about...
Chainmail Bikini
Cost: 100 gp (as expensive as chain shirt)
AC: +0 (a step down from padded armor)
MaxDex: +10 (a step up from padded armor)
Check Penalty: 0 (the same as padded armor)
Arcane Spell Failure: 5% (the same as padded armor)
Useless to most people, enchanted mithril versions are sometimes used by showy spellcasters.
Chainmail Bikini
Cost: 100 gp (as expensive as chain shirt)
AC: +0 (a step down from padded armor)
MaxDex: +10 (a step up from padded armor)
Check Penalty: 0 (the same as padded armor)
Arcane Spell Failure: 5% (the same as padded armor)
Useless to most people, enchanted mithril versions are sometimes used by showy spellcasters.
Spatzimaus
First Post
I wouldn't say "useless to most people".
Take, for example, the high-DEX uberarcher that goes into most Smackdown threads. Most armors aren't worthwhile for her thanks to their Max DEX. But, she wants a decent AC, so she buys the Chainmail Bikini and gets it enchanted. The cost would basically be the same as Bracers of Armor, except that it wouldn't tie up the bracer slot (allowing for Bracers of Archery) and allows for the more unusual armor enchantments.
See also: Monks (keep the arms open for Bracers of Striking)
Since +0 armors shouldn't require any sort of armor proficiency, this also makes the bikini good for Psions.
Take, for example, the high-DEX uberarcher that goes into most Smackdown threads. Most armors aren't worthwhile for her thanks to their Max DEX. But, she wants a decent AC, so she buys the Chainmail Bikini and gets it enchanted. The cost would basically be the same as Bracers of Armor, except that it wouldn't tie up the bracer slot (allowing for Bracers of Archery) and allows for the more unusual armor enchantments.
See also: Monks (keep the arms open for Bracers of Striking)
Since +0 armors shouldn't require any sort of armor proficiency, this also makes the bikini good for Psions.
Ravellion
serves Gnome Master
You don't need proficiency in armours that don't have a check penalty, so MW Studded Leather is more attractive for Psions, except perhaps Nomads.
Alright I'll stat the Bikini out now (inspired by Airwolf's sig)
Primary ability: +10 Armour bonus to armour class = 100000
Secondary ability: + 6 enhancement CHA Bonus = 36000.
Secondary ability cost x2 as it takes up no slot: 72000
Total cost 172000 gp.
Rav
Alright I'll stat the Bikini out now (inspired by Airwolf's sig)
Primary ability: +10 Armour bonus to armour class = 100000
Secondary ability: + 6 enhancement CHA Bonus = 36000.
Secondary ability cost x2 as it takes up no slot: 72000
Total cost 172000 gp.
Rav
RigaMortus
Explorer
Spatzimaus said:
There are a couple of potential problems with this...
First off, Monks can not wear armor. If they do, they lose some of their Monk abilities. That would mean Monks would have to run around nude because Monk Robues would be considered "armor".
Then you have to ask, what type of armor would Robes, bikinis, etc be considered? Probably Light. This means a Mage or Sorcer would have problems wearing them (assuming they had an Armor Check Penalty or Arcane Spell Failure, which I don't see them having, but you never know).
Not sure how Druids would be affected by this. Maybe not at all. I don't know too much about Druids since I never really played one, but I do know they are restricted in their choice of armor or weapons. Like they have to be "natural" or something, made from wood and such. So that might possibly mean a Druid couldn't wear a cotton shirt because it is considered armor and they can only wear specific armor, a cotton shirt not listed among them. Anyway, just an example...
And how would stacking work with this? I can see someone wearing a cotton shirt under a chain shirt, and then a Robe over that. So could they potentially get each piece of "Armor" enchanted with special abilities?
Spatzimaus
First Post
Originally posted by RigaMortus
First off, Monks can not wear armor. If they do, they lose some of their Monk abilities.
Not a problem. Just because it holds an enchantment like armor and takes the same slot as armor doesn't mean it has to count as armor. I know, you're thinking something about quacking like a duck, and I phrased it badly in the first post, but look at it the other way:
We say that there is one "body" slot. (see NWN). It can be filled with armor, enchanted clothing, or a robe. So, we say that something only counts as "armor" if it comes with a nonmagical armor bonus for the purposes of Monks, Druids, etc. The true armors require proficiency, give an armor check penalty, and so on.
You can wear multiple things in this slot (robe over armor over shirt), but only the outermost layer gives its magical effects (see Psychoactive Skins, PsiHB).
Then you have to ask, what type of armor would Robes, bikinis, etc be considered? Probably Light.
Only if you assume that the only options are Light, Medium, and Heavy. Given the rule change above, there clearly must be another category, "None", that robes and clothing fall into. No Max DEX, no armor check penalty, no appreciable weight, no armor bonus, no proficiency needed.
Not sure how Druids would be affected by this. Maybe not at all.
Depends whether you consider the chainmail bikini to be metal armor with a +0 armor bonus, or clothing. Can a Druid wear a metal belt? How about a helmet? Personally, I'd say that as a metal item the Druid shouldn't wear it, but you could make a leather bustier that does the same thing.
a Druid couldn't wear a cotton shirt because it is considered armor and they can only wear specific armor
Which is why I rephrased the rule above. A shirt isn't armor, it just occupies the same "body" slot that armor does, the one that 3E refers to as the "armor" slot. I don't think all Druids are supposed to run around naked, after all.
And how would stacking work with this? I can see someone wearing a cotton shirt under a chain shirt, and then a Robe over that. So could they potentially get each piece of "Armor" enchanted with special abilities?
You can already do this in 3E. This is one of the things I'm trying to avoid. No more wearing a vest under your armor with a robe over it.
First off, Monks can not wear armor. If they do, they lose some of their Monk abilities.
Not a problem. Just because it holds an enchantment like armor and takes the same slot as armor doesn't mean it has to count as armor. I know, you're thinking something about quacking like a duck, and I phrased it badly in the first post, but look at it the other way:
We say that there is one "body" slot. (see NWN). It can be filled with armor, enchanted clothing, or a robe. So, we say that something only counts as "armor" if it comes with a nonmagical armor bonus for the purposes of Monks, Druids, etc. The true armors require proficiency, give an armor check penalty, and so on.
You can wear multiple things in this slot (robe over armor over shirt), but only the outermost layer gives its magical effects (see Psychoactive Skins, PsiHB).
Then you have to ask, what type of armor would Robes, bikinis, etc be considered? Probably Light.
Only if you assume that the only options are Light, Medium, and Heavy. Given the rule change above, there clearly must be another category, "None", that robes and clothing fall into. No Max DEX, no armor check penalty, no appreciable weight, no armor bonus, no proficiency needed.
Not sure how Druids would be affected by this. Maybe not at all.
Depends whether you consider the chainmail bikini to be metal armor with a +0 armor bonus, or clothing. Can a Druid wear a metal belt? How about a helmet? Personally, I'd say that as a metal item the Druid shouldn't wear it, but you could make a leather bustier that does the same thing.
a Druid couldn't wear a cotton shirt because it is considered armor and they can only wear specific armor
Which is why I rephrased the rule above. A shirt isn't armor, it just occupies the same "body" slot that armor does, the one that 3E refers to as the "armor" slot. I don't think all Druids are supposed to run around naked, after all.
And how would stacking work with this? I can see someone wearing a cotton shirt under a chain shirt, and then a Robe over that. So could they potentially get each piece of "Armor" enchanted with special abilities?
You can already do this in 3E. This is one of the things I'm trying to avoid. No more wearing a vest under your armor with a robe over it.
Similar Threads
