Is Clothing considered armor...?

[KarinsDad]

And not necessarily true.

Magic armor certainly shouldn't resize to fit someone in an Antimagic Field... but then, while it's in the Field, it isn't magic armor, so that's kinda a given.

But you're assuming that the resizing is an effect with a duration, or a continuous effect, that can be suppressed. What if when someone goes to put it on, it transforms to the new size as an instantaneous effect? Now it's not fat dwarf armor masquerading as skinny elf armor... it's skinny elf armor that was, once upon a time, fat dwarf armor.

Since the effect was instantaneous, there's nothing to suppress when it hits an AMF...

-Hyp.

Edit - now, this interpretation could cause a problem if the armor is being worn by a magically transformed (Polymorphed, Enlarged, whatever) creature, since the armor would not change when it hits the AMF, but the wearer would...

Yes, I made that assumption since all size altering spells (TMK) have durations which are not instantaneous (Enlarge, Polymorphs, Righteous Might, Shapechange, Shrink Item, etc.) and most are transmutations (I cannot think of one which is not).

Personally, I like when the rules work the same, not when you have exceptions that are not called out in the rules. DMG page 9: "Look to any similar circumstance that is covered in a rulebook. Try to extrapolate from what you see presented there and apply it to the current circumstances."

But, if your armor (or ring or bracers or whatever) reverts back in size, you can have a problem even if you were not polymorphed (7 foot tall Barbarian with a Ring of Water Breathing suddenly has a pinky sized ring on his huge finger or his armor is suddenly dwarf sized again).

Both interpretations could have an issue.


This is similar to the golem issue. Constructs are magical and should be suppressed in a Antimagic Field, but WotC in its infinite wisdom decided against that. Not sure why. Did they change that in 3.5?

 

[Otterscrubber]

Well thread got sidetracked a bit. I have not heard any real arguements that answer the main question, mainly is there anything in the rules that states clearly that clothing is NOT just crappy armor. The main reason here is that some players in our campaign are bringing it up and I dont want to rule 0 this one, I would like to be able to say, "This is why it is not considered an armor type." In any event, even if clothing were considered to be armor with no AC bonus and no max dex bonus it would still have to fall into the Light Armor category, thus making it useless to monks? I will probably just end up saying ,"because I said so", but would like to avoid that.

 

[Artoomis]

You've got it backwards. The question is NOT where in the rules is it written that clothing is NOT armor, the question is where is it clearly stated in the rules that it IS armor?

The other way takes you down the road of silly questions like: where is the rule does it state that shoes are not rings? Well, it doesn't, of course, because shoes are c;learly NOT rings, just as clothes are not armor.

If you have players that wish to enchant clothes as if it were armor, have THEM show YOU where it is allowed in the rules. They will not be able to do it.

Core rules simply do not allow it. You can be very generous and allow it in various ways as has been already explained.

Note that a robe with a +5 armor bonus is STILL not armor and cannot be enchanted as armor.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I would like to be able to say, "This is why it is not considered an armor type." In any event, even if clothing were considered to be armor with no AC bonus and no max dex bonus it would still have to fall into the Light Armor category, thus making it useless to monks?

And that's exactly why.

The pictures all show Ember wearing clothes, but she's never listed as losing her monk abilities on account of it... therefore clothes are not armor.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

If you have players that wish to enchant clothes as if it were armor, have THEM show YOU where it is allowed in the rules. They will not be able to do it.

Core rules simply do not allow it. You can be very generous and allow it in various ways as has been already explained.

Precisely.

As a DM, it is sometimes difficult to explain why the spell (Magic Vestment) allows a certain effect (the short term add an Enhancement bonus to non-armor clothing), but the feat (Craft Magic Arms and Armor) does not (the long term add an Enhancement bonus to armor).

Sometimes as DM, you just have to say: "That's the way it is". One spell as an exception does not mean that the general rule has an exception. The spell clearly states that it is an exception ("for the purposes of this spell").

Clothing is not armor. It does not affect Monks. Have your players show you where in the rules that it says that it is and does.

 

[dcollins]

Well thread got sidetracked a bit. I have not heard any real arguements that answer the main question, mainly is there anything in the rules that states clearly that clothing is NOT just crappy armor.

(1) Clothing is not listed in the "Armor" table in the PHB.
(2) Clothing takes a different slot than armor in the list in the DMG.
(3) Clothing does not appear in the "Random Armor Type" table in the DMG.
(4) Clothing does not by itself have an Armor Bonus.
There are probably others.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Well, then I'm not sure what your point was.

What's the effective difference between a shirt with a +5 Armor bonus, and a shirt with a +5 Enhancement bonus to a +0 Armor bonus?

Magic Vestment won't stack with either of them. They're both ignored by touch attacks.

-Hyp.

Why wouldn't magic vestment stack with a shirt with a +5 armour bonus?

 

[Pagan priest]

Ah, but the primary function of clothes is to be armor. The secondary function is to display status. Any nudist could have cleared this up at the very beginning.

Clothing defends angainst the environment. In a very real sense it is armor... only good enough to help protect you from brambles and such. Jeans can save a knee from being skinned if you trip, etc. etc. etc.

I don't see a problem with allowing clothes to be enhanced just like armor.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Why wouldn't magic vestment stack with a shirt with a +5 armour bonus?

Because Magic Vestment treats clothing as having a +0 armor bonus, and that's what it would enhance. You can't cast Magic Vestment on Bracers of Armor to enhance that Armor Bonus, so neither could you cast Magic Vestment on Bracers of Armor reslotted into a shirt and expect to enhance that Armor bonus... only the one it gets by virtue of being a shirt that's the target of Magic Vestment (+0).

-Hyp.

 

[Camarath]

Why wouldn't magic vestment stack with a shirt with a +5 armour bonus?

Where is my regular clothing with +5 armor bonus?

Anyhow, wile it is not absolutely clear from the wording, since regular is not a well defined term in the rules (What is regular in D&D anyway?), I believe that regular is meant to mean mundane non-magical clothing in this case. That would bar it form being cast on a magical item IMO.