Magic Clothes

[kreynolds]

Market price...

*looks at the post again*

Yup. Still not in there.

 

[Zhure]

:typing slowly:

+1 "shirt" (+1), 100% fortification (+5). Market Price = 36,000 gp.

Greg

 

[kreynolds]

:typing slowly:

+1 "shirt" (+1), 100% fortification (+5). Market Price = 36,000 gp.

Whoops. I was off by +1. Doh! Thanks.

However, the attitude is unnecessary, unprovoked, and unbecoming. Is there any particular reason for it?

 

[dcollins]

Is there any good reason that a wizard character who has 5 or more ranks in Craft (tailoring) and the Craft Wondrous Arms and Armor feat could not add enhancement bonuses and armor special abilities to a suit of normal clothing (Armor Bonus +0)? After all, she could add them to padded armor, which "features quilted layers of cloth and batting" and so is really just clothes...

Indeed, this would be a "new item" and require special DM approval for it.
www.superdan.net/dndfaq3.html

 

[LokiDR]

How different is this than a mirthral buckler? I believe you can get heavy fortification on a shield. If wizard can do that, armored robes seem fair game.

 

[Zhure]

Whoops. I was off by +1. Doh! Thanks.

However, the attitude is unnecessary, unprovoked, and unbecoming. Is there any particular reason for it?

Merely responding in kind instead of kindness. It wasn't intended to be provocvative. We all make mistakes, especially me, but when I had to reiterate it, by the third time I got the impression you were being intentionally obdurate. My mistake, no offense intended.

Greg

 

[Zhure]

How different is this than a mirthral buckler? I believe you can get heavy fortification on a shield. If wizard can do that, armored robes seem fair game.

I agree. You're arguing that it's a balanced ruling as extrapolated from other rules, but it won't convince those who are only arguing "it's not a core magic item."

Greg

 

[kreynolds]

Merely responding in kind instead of kindness.

I was being nice in the first place. I wasn't being rude, so when you didn't respond in kind, that's when I got confused as to your tone.

We all make mistakes, especially me, but when I had to reiterate it, by the third time I got the impression you were being intentionally obdurate.

Here's what happened. When I read your post, I saw 18,000gp, and I didn't see anything that stated "creation cost". It wasn't until later, right before you posted your second iteration, that I finally got your meaning.

My mistake, no offense intended.

It's cool. Just a misunderstanding. It happens. At least we're big enough to admit it.

 

[LokiDR]

I agree. You're arguing that it's a balanced ruling as extrapolated from other rules, but it won't convince those who are only arguing "it's not a core magic item."

Greg

If you view the DMG and splat book as the only source for magic items, I could buy that view. No group I have ever heard of plays that way. They at least use items from campaign material or plot items.

I can't convince a rules lawer, unless I can bring in 3rd party books like Quintisential Fighter. But in a non-powergamer game, I don't see this as problem. The armored robes make more sense than a mirthral buckler any day.

 

[bret]

There is reason to think that something like this is legal.

The Robe of the Archmagi is a garment (clothes slot) that has many powers, one of which is +5 AC.

Personally, I think it would make more sense if both Bracers of Armor and robes such as the above required both Craft Wonderous Item and Craft Magic Arms and Armor feats. Bracers of Archery require both.