Do people really allow the Dastana in their games?

[Rystil Arden]

Technically, however, an enhancement on a dastana should stack with an enhancement to armor. Why?

Because of the way enhancement bonuses work.

You have a suit of armor which provides a +2 armor bonus to AC.
You have a dastana which provides a +2 armor bonus to AC, which stacks with that from armor.
Together, these provide a +4 armor bonus to AC.

If you enhance the suit of armor to +1, it now provides a (+2 +1) +3 armor bonus to AC.
If you enhance to dastana to +1, it now provides a (+2 +1) +3 armor bonus to AC, which stacks with that from armor.
Together, these provide a +6 armor bonus to AC.

It stacks because of the exact same rationale that allows enhancements to shields in 3.0 to stack with enhancements to armor in 3.0. Both are enhanced separately, both provide armor bonuses which stack with each other, and therefore the enhancements stack with each other.

If you consider the Dastana's extra cover to add to the armour as a +1 Dastana bonus to the Armour bonus (rather than due to a separate entity like 3.0's shield Armour bonus, since the Dastana is basically a removable addition to the armour), then it works out differently. Frankly, though, the best idea is simply to avoid allowing dastanas with an enhancement bonus to AC, if you allow them at all.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

If you consider the Dastana's extra cover to add to the armour as a +1 Dastana bonus to the Armour bonus (rather than due to a separate entity like 3.0's shield Armour bonus, since the Dastana is basically a removable addition to the armour), then it works out differently.

No, it doesn't. Treating it as a separate named bonus makes it even more stackable - so long as dastana can be enhanced.

Because then you'd have:

Armor Bonus
Enhancement to Armor Bonus
Dastana Bonus
Enhancement to Dastana Bonus
Shield Bonus
Enhancement to Shield Bonus
Natural Armor Bonus
Enhancement to Natural Armor Bonus

None of which have any problems at all stacking with each other.

As you say in the end, the only way to prevent magical dastanas stacking with magical armor is to make them magically un-enhanceable.

 

[Rystil Arden]

No, it doesn't. Treating it as a separate named bonus makes it even more stackable - so long as dastana can be enhanced.

Because then you'd have:

Armor Bonus
Enhancement to Armor Bonus
Dastana Bonus
Enhancement to Dastana Bonus
Shield Bonus
Enhancement to Shield Bonus
Natural Armor Bonus
Enhancement to Natural Armor Bonus

None of which have any problems at all stacking with each other.

As you say in the end, the only way to prevent magical dastanas stacking with magical armor is to make them magically un-enhanceable.

Its not a case of a Dastana bonus to AC though, it would be a +1 to the Armour Bonus, which then adds to AC. It all depends on what exactly you rule is gaining an enhancement from the enhancement bonus, since the dastana is simply a part of the larger armour. So I'm saying that wearing a magical dastana gives the armour an enhancement bonus to the Armour bonus (similarly to how magic Armour grants its enhancement bonus regardless of removing pieces of the armour, magic dastanas grant that enhancement bonus regardless of replacing the main amrour itself), but that the Dastana is not gaining a self-enhancement. To put it another way: Going naked with a Dastana does not provide its bonus (you need a light armour). Why? Because the Dastana gives its bonus to the associated armour.

 

[ksbsnowowl]

It all depends on what exactly you rule is gaining an enhancement from the enhancement bonus, since the dastana is simply a part of the larger armour.

Therein lies your mistake. By the RAW dastana are a completely different piece of equipment, just as a buckler is a different piece of equipment from armor.

I could see it as a reasonable rule to require that dastana occupy one's bracer slot, but even that is debatable as to if it is the RAW.

 

[Rel]

I could see it as a reasonable rule to require that dastana occupy one's bracer slot, but even that is debatable as to if it is the RAW.

I thought this was unequivocal by the RAW (admittedly I didn't see the entry in the A&EG but I Googled it and found some rules that I thought were cut and pasted from OA). My understanding was that the Dastana did occupy the Bracer slot.

In case it wasn't clear above (and not that it really matters), I disallowed the Dastana from my campaign entirely. I just don't like the idea of the things.

In my mind, a Chain Shirt is as heavy an armor as you can wear and still have it considered Light. You cannot therefore add on a pair of large greaves and still be wearing Light armor. You've upgraded to something heavier that now gives a better AC but also carries with it some movement penalties, a higher ACP and worse Max Dex.

I think that adding in a piece of armor, whether enchantable or not, that completely invalidates the Medium armors and starts to heavily impinge on the relative effacacy of the Heavy armors is not something I need to bother with. Since it didn't matter much to the PC, I disallowed it and moved on.

It also bothered me a bit to have an item in the game that, if I allowed it to be enchanted, became suddenly better than Bracers of Armor in every way and cost the same amount (less the cost for the Masterwork Dastana). And if I didn't allow it to be enchanted then I'd suddenly created this bizarre, unique sort of item that was immune to enchantment.

I'm more than happy for this thread to continue serving as a platform for the rules debate over stacking. But my decision has been made and I'm not looking back.

 

[ksbsnowowl]

My understanding was that the Dastana did occupy the Bracer slot.

You're probably right; the description does call them 'large metal bracers' after all.

It also bothered me ...that, if ...enchanted, [dastana] became suddenly better than Bracers of Armor in every way and cost the same amount

Ah, but enhanced dastana do not help protect against incorporeal touch attacks. Bracers of Armor do.

Not that I'm trying to change your mind; I'm just pointing out that there is an advantage to bracers of armor.