Defensive Shoe Armor RAW Cheese

[LordOfCain]

According to rules for caltrops, shoes or other footwear gives +2 AC. So could a fighter wrap his cloak around his feet and improve his defense by a lot???

[FocusWolf413]

I think you just need to use some common sense. If someone wraps thick fabric over their feet, they will need to make some balance checks to walk. The spikes on caltrops are one or two inches long. If there's a significant amount of padding, increase the circumstantial AC bonus.

[LordOfCain]

I am not talking about just AC vs caltrops but AC against an orc warrior. Like if cloth around your feet would decrease the chance of an orc warrior hitting you in an open plain.

[AvatarVecna]

I am not talking about just AC vs caltrops but AC against an orc warrior. Like if cloth around your feet would decrease the chance of an orc warrior hitting you in an open plain.

There's two problems with this.

1) The RAI Issue

This AC bonus (from wearing protective foot gear/coverings) is implied to only affect your AC for the purposes of the caltrop's attack. Technically speaking, however, there are no words explicitly stating that, so it technically adds 2 points to your AC...

2)The RAW Issue

...as an armor bonus. Bonuses of the same type don't stack, so if you're already wearing armor that grants a +2 or greater armor bonus, this does nothing. Now, if you're a commoner or a wizard, and you want a slightly better AC, and you're either theory-crafting or working with a DM who only cares about pure RAW (no matter how silly it is), then this gives you an armor bonus.

[LordOfCain]

There's two problems with this.
2)The RAW Issue

...as an armor bonus. Bonuses of the same type don't stack, so if you're already wearing armor that grants a +2 or greater armor bonus, this does nothing. Now, if you're a commoner or a wizard, and you want a slightly better AC, and you're either theory-crafting or working with a DM who only cares about pure RAW (no matter how silly it is), then this gives you an armor bonus.

Just wear leather armor with a +5 ENHANCEMENT bonus from magic.

[AvatarVecna]

Just wear leather armor with a +5 ENHANCEMENT bonus from magic.

Leather Armor gives a +2 armor bonus, so wrapping your feet wouldn't improve your AC from there.

Ladies and gentlement, we've finally found a use for enchanted Padded Armor! :smallcool:

EDIT: Of course, that "use" is being slightly better than magic leather armor: 5 gp cheaper, 5% easier to use magic in, and 2 more potential points of Dex to AC (if you have a really high Dex).

[LordOfCain]

Fighter opens shoe store selling shoes to wizards and sorcerers. Makes billions of gp through candle of invocation cheese. Profit. We finally have a reason to take ranks in Profession (Shoemaking) :smallbiggrin:

[FocusWolf413]

I can absolutely guarantee that someone would throw a book at you if you tried this.

[AvatarVecna]

Fighter opens shoe store selling shoes to wizards and sorcerers. Makes billions of gp through candle of invocation cheese. Profit. We finally have a reason to take ranks in Profession (Shoemaking) :smallbiggrin:

The problem with that plan is that you need Craft: Shoes to make your armor shoes. Even if a wizard desperately wanted them, they have more skill points than you (being a Wizard with a high Int), and Craft is an Int-based skill, so they'll have a higher bonus than you. Not only does this mean you won't get their business, it means they'll likely be better at making and selling shoes than you, making them the superior shoe store (and they'll run you out of business).

Poor fighters. Even cheesy shoe armor can't save them.

[Remedy]

I can absolutely guarantee that someone would throw a book at you if you tried this.
But it's okay, I'm wearing five pairs of shoes so they shouldn't be able to hit me.

[LordOfCain]

Or all of the books. Ouch the DMG, Ouch the PHB, ouch the MM, OOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWW, the Spell Compendium. You put out my eye.... Call 911.:smalleek:

[Jeff the Green]

Just wear leather armor with a +5 ENHANCEMENT bonus from magic.

Not how it works. The enhancement bonus isn't to AC, it's to the armor's armor bonus. So +1 leather armor gives a +3 armor bonus to AC. Similarly, barkskin gives an enhancement bonus to natural armor. It doesn't stack with other enhancement bonuses to natural armor, and it plus the normal natural armor doesn't stack with some hypothetical free-floating natural armor bonus.

[AvatarVecna]

But it's okay, I'm wearing five pairs of shoes so they shouldn't be able to hit me.

Sadly, more shoes doesn't increase your AC. Although this brings up another interesting note: you don't make a save or a check to dodge around caltrops, they make an attack (which doesn't seem logical, but whatever). But it's whatever, as long as a roll's being made based on your skill/protection, it's all good. What makes this straight up illogical is that the attack is triggered by entering the square.


Each time a creature moves into an area covered by caltrops (or spends a round fighting while standing in such an area), it might step on one. The caltrops make an attack roll (base attack bonus +0) against the creature. For this attack, the creature’s shield, armor, and deflection bonuses do not count. If the creature is wearing shoes or other footwear, it gets a +2 armor bonus to AC. If the caltrops succeed on the attack, the creature has stepped on one. The caltrop deals 1 point of damage, and the creature’s speed is reduced by one-half because its foot is wounded. This movement penalty lasts for 24 hours, or until the creature is successfully treated with a DC 15 Heal check, or until it receives at least 1 point of magical curing. A charging or running creature must immediately stop if it steps on a caltrop. Any creature moving at half speed or slower can pick its way through a bed of caltrops with no trouble.

Caltrops may not be effective against unusual opponents.

According to the bolded part, it doesn't matter if you're flying, or floating: if you enter the space, you get attacked by the caltrops. If it hits you, you stepped on one (whether or not you have feet) and take damage; it's even possible for the caltrop to automatically miss you by rolling a nat 1, no matter how terrible your AC is (even if you're literally taking up the entire space). This is the default. Sure, that underlined part indicates that this doesn't always work, but because it doesn't define when caltrops are ineffective, it leaves it entirely up to DM judgement; if you're playing with the kind of DM who allows shoe armor, they probably also say that caltrops always attack, since there's no basis for determining whether or not a creature is unusual enough for caltrops to be ineffective.

[TheifofZ]

Or all of the books. Ouch the DMG, Ouch the PHB, ouch the MM, OOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWW, the Spell Compendium. You put out my eye.... Call 911.:smalleek:

That's what happens when you forget to wear your foot-armor. You get your eye poked out.

[Zetapup]

Wait couldn't this be used to give monks an armor bonus? I don't know of any rule that qualifies shoes as armor, so a monk could wear shoes and get a bonus to AC that they normally wouldn't be able to get (cheesy as heck, but hey, monks need it). Would it be possible to enchant the shoes with enhancement bonuses and whatnot? My gut's leaning towards no, but it'd be nice for monks if you could.

[LordOfCain]

+5 enchanted monk's shoes: when you need your shoes to deflect an orc barbarian's gigantic chunk of wall for you. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0796.html

[ekarney]

But it's okay, I'm wearing five pairs of shoes so they shouldn't be able to hit me.

Do you mind if I sig this?


I wonder, what if someone only used non-armour that grants armour bonuses?
Shoes, Dastana, Chahar-aina and a Kappa Shell.

Or even what the highest AC would be using only items like those.

Now I know Dastana and Chahar-aina say they need foundation armour, but as a theoretical exercise.

[SangoProduction]

Also, even though caltrops give a +2 armor bonus to shoe-wearers (darned racist, halfling-hating caltrops), they also ignore armor bonus.

[Remedy]

Do you mind if I sig this?

By all means.

[Psyren]

Am I missing something here? Because the bold part below...


Each time a creature moves into an area covered by caltrops (or spends a round fighting while standing in such an area), it might step on one. The caltrops make an attack roll (base attack bonus +0) against the creature. For this attack, the creature’s shield, armor, and deflection bonuses do not count. If the creature is wearing shoes or other footwear, it gets a +2 armor bonus to AC. If the caltrops succeed on the attack, the creature has stepped on one. The caltrop deals 1 point of damage, and the creature’s speed is reduced by one-half because its foot is wounded. This movement penalty lasts for 24 hours, or until the creature is successfully treated with a DC 15 Heal check, or until it receives at least 1 point of magical curing. A charging or running creature must immediately stop if it steps on a caltrop. Any creature moving at half speed or slower can pick its way through a bed of caltrops with no trouble.

Caltrops may not be effective against unusual opponents.

...seems to indicate that the armor bonus from shoes does only apply to the caltrop's attack. Sure it's in the next sentence, but it still appears related to the preceding one.



According to the bolded part, it doesn't matter if you're flying, or floating: if you enter the space, you get attacked by the caltrops. If it hits you, you stepped on one (whether or not you have feet) and take damage; it's even possible for the caltrop to automatically miss you by rolling a nat 1, no matter how terrible your AC is (even if you're literally taking up the entire space). This is the default. Sure, that underlined part indicates that this doesn't always work, but because it doesn't define when caltrops are ineffective, it leaves it entirely up to DM judgement; if you're playing with the kind of DM who allows shoe armor, they probably also say that caltrops always attack, since there's no basis for determining whether or not a creature is unusual enough for caltrops to be ineffective.

The trouble with "unusual" is that it's very broad. If we interpret it to mean "unusual from the perspective of the caltrop, or likely caltrop victims" - then yes, flying, floating and footless opponents would all be considered "unusual" and thus be immune.

[SangoProduction]

Thank you, but I thought someone already pointed out that it was only for the attack.