Enchanting clothing with armor bonuses

[Feldar]

Numerous class features stop working if the character wears armor.

Does anyone have definitive proof that regular clothing (not armor) can be enchanted like armor? If so, would that count as armor for the purposes of class features (is armor anything that provides an armor bonus or just armor and not clothing)?

[Zanos]

MIC allows you to add an AC bonus to any item in the arms or body slot. Bracers of Armor and Robe of the Archmagi are the examples.

I don't think you can do it with just 'clothing that doesn't take up a magic item slot', but there's no extra cost for adding a +8 armor bonus to your bracers. It shouldn't count as wearing armor. Per the Arms and Equipment guide you can also substitute in special properties instead for the same costs.

You can also cast magic vestment on regular clothing for up to a +5 bonus.

[Thurbane]

I've seen the wording in the Magic Vestment spell cited as evidence that you can enchant clothing with armor bonuses.

[Gruftzwerg]

I've seen the wording in the Magic Vestment spell cited as evidence that you can enchant clothing with armor bonuses.

RAW couldn't be clearer in this chase:


An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.
The spell text makes a clear specific exception from the general rules. But only for its niche. It doesn't become a general rule. It had never the power to do so.

Primary Source Rule .. Amen ^^

[InvisibleBison]

RAW couldn't be clearer in this chase:


The spell text makes a clear specific exception from the general rules. But only for its niche. It doesn't become a general rule. It had never the power to do so.

Actually, RAW could be significantly clearer in this case, because there is no general rule that ordinary clothing isn't armor. The person writing magic vestment seemed to think that there was, but I don't think "a rule whose existence we deduced from an apparent exception in a spell" to be RAW, if for no other reason than because it's not actually written anywhere.

[KillianHawkeye]

If you can enchant robes, which are clothing, with an armor bonus then you should be able to enchant any kind of outfit with an armor bonus. What's the difference between robes of the archmagi and a three piece suit of the archmagi?

[InvisibleBison]

If you can enchant robes, which are clothing, with an armor bonus then you should be able to enchant any kind of outfit with an armor bonus. What's the difference between robes of the archmagi and a three piece suit of the archmagi?

The god of magic likes robes and doesn't like three piece suits, so if you try to enchant robes everything will work but if you try to enchant a suit your magic will go haywire and set everything on fire.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Armor occupies your body/robe/armor item slot.

Thus an enhancement bonus to armor bonus, as well as armor special properties, are tied to that item slot.

Thus any item that occupies that item slot is eligible for those types of item properties.

RAW, "A suit of armor or a shield may be made of an unusual material. (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicArmor.htm)" Cloth would be an unusual material for magic armor, wouldn't it?

[Thurbane]

RAW couldn't be clearer in this chase:[/COLOR]

Actually, RAW could be significantly clearer in this case, because there is no general rule that ordinary clothing isn't armor. The person writing magic vestment seemed to think that there was, but I don't think "a rule whose existence we deduced from an apparent exception in a spell" to be RAW, if for no other reason than because it's not actually written anywhere.

Not saying I agree or disagree with the citation as evidence; but now inactive forum member Curmudgeon used to passionately argue the case in the positive, based on the spell.

In reply to the OP: if Bracers of Armor don't count as armor, I don't see why a body slot item made of cloth should.

I don't see anyone arguing that a Robe of the Archmagi would interfere with Monk abilities, for instance.

[Gruftzwerg]

Actually, RAW could be significantly clearer in this case, because there is no general rule that ordinary clothing isn't armor. The person writing magic vestment seemed to think that there was, but I don't think "a rule whose existence we deduced from an apparent exception in a spell" to be RAW, if for no other reason than because it's not actually written anywhere.
How do you fit clothing into the armor (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm)rules/definition? How does it protect against attacks? Why ain't it listed in any armor list? Why it is never called out as armor in it definition/description?
No rule base at all, sorry.

If you can enchant robes, which are clothing, with an armor bonus then you should be able to enchant any kind of outfit with an armor bonus. What's the difference between robes of the archmagi and a three piece suit of the archmagi?
Those are specific exceptional items. Can you show me a general definition of Robe or armor enhancements that would allow them to work together? (Dunno, maybe I missed it, but IIRC there is none).

Armor occupies your body/robe/armor item slot.

Thus an enhancement bonus to armor bonus, as well as armor special properties, are tied to that item slot.

Thus any item that occupies that item slot is eligible for those types of item properties.

RAW, "A suit of armor or a shield may be made of an unusual material. (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicArmor.htm)" Cloth would be an unusual material for magic armor, wouldn't it?
Still doesn't fit the definition of "Armor (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm)" in 3.5


Not saying I agree or disagree with the citation as evidence; but now inactive forum member Curmudgeon used to passionately argue the case in the positive, based on the spell.
Trying to sell "specific rules" as "general rule" is totally wrong by RAW. We have rules against that, like the Primary Source Rule..^^

____________________
Just on a sidenote:
From a balance perspective and as suggestion for actual play at tables, I'm totally fine with enchanting clothes. It's just that it ain't RAW.

[InvisibleBison]

How do you fit clothing into the armor (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm)rules/definition? How does it protect against attacks? Why ain't it listed in any armor list? Why it is never called out as armor in it definition/description?
No rule base at all, sorry.

____________________
Just on a sidenote:
From a balance perspective and as suggestion for actual play at tables, I'm totally fine with enchanting clothes. It's just that it ain't RAW.

It's not RAW that clothes are armor, but it's also not RAW that they aren't. The rules are silent on the issue, which means that it's an area that requires a DM ruling.

[RNightstalker]

Numerous class features stop working if the character wears armor.

Does anyone have definitive proof that regular clothing (not armor) can be enchanted like armor? If so, would that count as armor for the purposes of class features (is armor anything that provides an armor bonus or just armor and not clothing)?

The spell that has been mentioned previously would allow clothing to be enchanted to provide an armor bonus, though I wouldn't allow the named enchantments like fortification etc. It takes up the robe/body slot.

[Gruftzwerg]

It's not RAW that clothes are armor, but it's also not RAW that they aren't. The rules are silent on the issue, which means that it's an area that requires a DM ruling.

really?
Armor (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm)

Armor Qualities

To wear heavier armor effectively, a character can select the Armor Proficiency feats, but most classes are automatically proficient with the armors that work best for them.

Armor and shields can take damage from some types of attacks.

Here is the format for armor entries (given as column headings on Table: Armor and Shields, below).
I don't see how regular cloths does take damage from some types of "attacks".
Nor I see it in the Armor list.
Clearly excludes Clothes from being armor. Thx god, otherwise we would be forced to play monks naked...

[Feldar]

The spell that has been mentioned previously would allow clothing to be enchanted to provide an armor bonus, though I wouldn't allow the named enchantments like fortification etc. It takes up the robe/body slot.

Yeah, it either can be enchanted like armor or it can't. The middle ground is just unacceptable.

If clothing counts as armor, then monks are always fightin nekkid.

If clothing doesn't count as armor, then it can't be enchanted like armor.

In my opinion the precedents that there are magical clothing items that provide armor bonuses are sufficient precedent, but the rules don't seem to fully back that up.


It's not RAW that clothes are armor, but it's also not RAW that they aren't. The rules are silent on the issue, which means that it's an area that requires a DM ruling.

Agreed. I just want to be on sound footing when I make it.

Thanks all for your feedback!

[Thurbane]

I just went and found an old comment by Curmudgeon: https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=10323364&postcount=29

Looks like I was misunderstanding his stance. I think he was arguing that you could enchant a robe to provide an AC bonus in the same way, say, Bracers of Armor do. Then cast magic Vestment on the same robe, and the enhancement bonus from the spell stacks with the armor bonus from the magic item.

Which is totally different than what OP was asking.

[Gruftzwerg]

Yeah, it either can be enchanted like armor or it can't. The middle ground is just unacceptable.

If clothing counts as armor, then monks are always fightin nekkid.

If clothing doesn't count as armor, then it can't be enchanted like armor.

In my opinion the precedents that there are magical clothing items that provide armor bonuses are sufficient precedent, but the rules don't seem to fully back that up.



Agreed. I just want to be on sound footing when I make it.

Thanks all for your feedback!

If you go strict RAW, we lack "general" rules to directly enchant clothes/robes with armor enhancements. But we have specific exception even in RAW to make it "possible" (!= general).

1. Magic Vestment creates a specific exception for itself to do so.

2. Specific items like Robe of the Archmagi also create specific exceptions for themselves only.

3. By RAW Custom Magic Item rules you wouldn't be able to directly craft custom Robes with armor enhancements, but you can take one of those "specific" items and alter em with adding stuff to them.

_______________

Does it break balance to make full customizable Robes possible? Imho no. It's not that the world is gonna break apart due to this. So as an actual play suggestion I don't see any problems with it. Especially if you consider that even by RAW there is an "option" to do so.

[Nifft]

If clothes count as armor, won't that break class features for some PCs?

(Not for Elan, of course, who runs around naked. Just for sensible characters with a whit of modesty.)

[InvisibleBison]

I don't see how regular cloths does take damage from some types of "attacks".

Clothes can be damaged (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#itemsSurvivingafteraSavingTh row) if you roll a 1 on a saving throw against an effect that can harm them.


Nor I see it in the Armor list.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In order to prove that clothes are not armor by RAW, you have to quote the section of the rules that explicitly says that clothes are not armor. You can't do this, because no such text exists. There's lots of places that imply that clothes are not armor, but nowhere does it explicitly say that they aren't. Thus, a DM who decided to consider clothes to be armor wouldn't be houseruling, merely adopting an unusual interpretation of the rules.

[gijoemike]

Bee Keepers Outfit is armor that provides an explicit +0 bonus unless it is a stinging insect. Then I believe it is +6. There have been many many arguments as to weather a monk can wear the item or not.

Would I let monks have permanent + 5 clothes? No, monks are supposed to not wear armor/gain benefits of armor. The robes of the archmagi are an oddity though and I have never once thought about monk + robes. So there are ways around this limitation.

Would I let casting magic vestment on clothes for a temp bonus? Well that is specifically ok by the rules, but that seems wicked dumb as pumping caster level + metamagic extend would basically be violating what I just wrote above. I don't like this, armor enhancements are supposed to go on ARMOR. Magic Vestment on a cotton shirt is just wrong. What about mage armor and the like?

I don't let the monk wear a bee keepers outfit.

[the_tick_rules]

I swear if some from WOTC gave an official errata on this they would be a legend.

[Zanos]

Would I let monks have permanent + 5 clothes? No, monks are supposed to not wear armor/gain benefits of armor. The robes of the archmagi are an oddity though and I have never once thought about monk + robes. So there are ways around this limitation.
Monks can still benefit from armor bonuses from magic items and spells. Bracers of Armor, magic vestment, mage armor, etc.

[Rebel7284]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In order to prove that clothes are not armor by RAW, you have to quote the section of the rules that explicitly says that clothes are not armor. You can't do this, because no such text exists. There's lots of places that imply that clothes are not armor, but nowhere does it explicitly say that they aren't. Thus, a DM who decided to consider clothes to be armor wouldn't be houseruling, merely adopting an unusual interpretation of the rules.

This is not how the rules work. There is also no rules that your familiar isn't armor, that a scroll of dispel magic isn't armor, or that apple juice isn't armor. The rules tell you what you ARE allowed to do within the system. The list of things you cannot do is infinite. Of course the rules will sometimes add what you cannot do for clarity.

I will also add that it's fairly clear to me that clothing/robes are not intended to BE armor. However, whether or not they can be enchanted like armor is a different question and the intent isn't clear there. There is some evidence that some designers thought that they could be. But since this isn't codified in the rules, you will probably need to confirm with your DM if they agree with such an extrapolation in their game.

[Nifft]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In order to prove that clothes are not armor by RAW, you have to quote the section of the rules that explicitly says that clothes are not armor. You can't do this, because no such text exists. There's lots of places that imply that clothes are not armor, but nowhere does it explicitly say that they aren't. Thus, a DM who decided to consider clothes to be armor wouldn't be houseruling, merely adopting an unusual interpretation of the rules.

There are passages which cannot be true if clothes were armor, for example this one:


Ready for battle even when barefoot and dressed in peasant clothes (...)

(...) The key feature of the monk is her ability to fight unarmed and unarmored.

"Unarmored" is a description applied to "dressed in clothes".

Therefore, "dressed in clothes" should not be considered the same as armored.


That said, it's not valid to demand an explicit denial from the rules. The rules should provide explicit denials when the rules deviate from reasonable expectations, not every time about every topic.

The Equipment section of the book lists both clothes and armor, and clothes are not categorized as armor.

Rope also isn't categorized as armor, and the rules don't need to tell you that you can't wear a rope on top of your armor for +max AC.



Wouldn't it be funny if clothes were armor, though?


https://i.imgur.com/wD76XB4.png

Since no time limit is listed for "clothes", the game never tells you to stop putting it on, and since you need the game to tell you explicitly when things don't happen, you must continue putting the "armor" on for an undefined span of time.

Perhaps you're permitted to halt the action when you gain the Dead condition -- or perhaps not, which would explain ghosts wearing sheets -- they're embarrassed that they failed to dress.


Therefore, if clothes were armor, nobody could ever wear them.

[Asmotherion]

Magic Vestment mentions that "An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell." This suggest clothing otherwise does not count as armor, including if it gives an AC bonus.

However, if the AC bonus it gives is an Armor Bonus, it won't stack with other abilities that give an Armor Bonus. That said, a Monk can safelly wear Enchanted Clothing and maintain his unarmored AC.

[Gruftzwerg]

Clothes can be damaged (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#itemsSurvivingafteraSavingTh row) if you roll a 1 on a saving throw against an effect that can harm them.



Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In order to prove that clothes are not armor by RAW, you have to quote the section of the rules that explicitly says that clothes are not armor. You can't do this, because no such text exists. There's lots of places that imply that clothes are not armor, but nowhere does it explicitly say that they aren't. Thus, a DM who decided to consider clothes to be armor wouldn't be houseruling, merely adopting an unusual interpretation of the rules.
As Rebel7284 said, it works the other way in 3.5. You need to show me rules that provide your statement.
The Armor list in the PHB is the primary source for what is (everything on the list) and what is not armor (anything left). Anything else needs specific statements to be considered "armor". This is confirmed by other "armor" lists (e.g. Arms & Equipment Guide book) that call out to extend the general list given in the PHB. Even specific exotic armor types outside of the PHB make this call outs.
You still lack any proof that clothes count as armor besides from the spell Magic Vestment. And the spell description is worded the way that it creates a specific exception to the "norm". And the norm (general rule) in this chase is that clothes aren't armor.


Magic Vestment mentions that "An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell." This suggest clothing otherwise does not count as armor, including if it gives an AC bonus.

However, if the AC bonus it gives is an Armor Bonus, it won't stack with other abilities that give an Armor Bonus. That said, a Monk can safelly wear Enchanted Clothing and maintain his unarmored AC.

It is an enhancement bonus to armor not armor bonus.

________________

Magic Vestment (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicVestment.htm)

You imbue a suit of armor or a shield with an enhancement bonus of +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5 at 20th level).

An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.

[Segev]

Given that the items which "create specific exceptions for themselves" do so without any cost over and above those paid for the armor enchantments (plus whatever else is on them), it is apparently possible to have your Glamered Shadow +3 Tunic create a specific exception for itself for no additional cost over that associated with making it masterwork and enchanting it with those enhancements.

[Thurbane]

Bee Keepers Outfit is armor that provides an explicit +0 bonus unless it is a stinging insect. Then I believe it is +6. There have been many many arguments as to weather a monk can wear the item or not.

I hadn't really heard about or read this item before. Just checked out A&EG: I'm not sure how it says it provides an explicit +0 armor bonus? I'm only seeing a situational +6 armor bonus against fine sized stinging and biting creatures.

Maybe I'm misreading it?

[Gruftzwerg]

I hadn't really heard about or read this item before. Just checked out A&EG: I'm not sure how it says it provides an explicit +0 armor bonus? I'm only seeing a situational +6 armor bonus against fine sized stinging and biting creatures.

Maybe I'm misreading it?

No, you hit the nail right on spot. It is still an outfit that only gives a specific AC bonus against bite and sting attacks from "fine sized" creatures. It is categorized as "outfit" and nowhere does the text imply that it is armor nor that it counts as armor for any purposes (e.g. no magic armor enhancements).

[Zerryzerry]

I think the approach is not correct.
We are not talking about clothes with an inherent armor bonus (which is armor), but clothes with an ENHANCEMENT bonus.
A tunic +2 AC, when you cast a CL12 Magic Vestment gives a total bonus of +3, not +5. A leather ARMOR, with inherent AC of 2, gives +5 when hit with the same spell

Magic clothes with an enhancement bonus to AC are like masterwork clothes with Magic Vestment and Permanency cast on them...
They use up your torso slot, and you cannot wear another magic item over or under them.

They are not considered armor for the purpose of class limitation (like monks).

There is no RAW for this, but most of the replies i read seem to consider the AC bonus being inherent to the clothes, instead of an enhancement bonus

[Segev]

There is no RAW for this, but most of the replies i read seem to consider the AC bonus being inherent to the clothes, instead of an enhancement bonus

I...haven't been seeing this in the replies, so I would hesitate to agree that they are. I will agree that, if they are, they are wrong. Clothes have +0 armor bonus to AC, more or less by default. They need to explicitly state if they give an armor bonus (and then they're probably classified as "armor" more than "clothes"). But I have been reading every bit of this discussion about "magic armor clothing" as being +0 armor bonus, +X enhancement bonus to AC.

[Maat Mons]

If you're a DM responding to a player who wants magic clothes, I'd just let them have it. Tell them you're allowing a custom item based on Bracers of Armor, but occupying a different body slot. Britches of Armor, let's say.

[Tiktakkat]

That is the key - the differences between "armor bonuses", "enhancement bonuses to armor", and then there are "armor special abilities".

Bracers of armor and various magical robes provide "armor bonuses" to armor class.
This is an actual armor bonus, like ordinary armor.
They explicitly cannot be added to non-magical items that provide an armor or shield bonus to armor class. (MIC, page 234, Table 6-11: Adding/Improving Common Item Effects, footnote 2)
They are not actual armor, and do not interfere with class abilities that preclude wearing armor. (FAQ 3/14/08, page 21, last Monk entry before Ninja)

Magic Vestment provides an "enhancement bonus to armor", as do magic armor enhancements.
These increase the armor bonus of the item.
Magic Vestment can explicitly be added to clothing, which is treated as having an armor bonus of 0 for the effects of the spell.

Armor Special Abilities mostly add to the cost of magic armor as if they were "enhancement bonuses to armor", though some have static costs.
These can explicitly be added to Bracers of Armor, up to an equivalent of +13. (Arms and Equipment Guide, page 130, sidebar)

The open questions would be:

Can you add armor bonuses to items other than "bracers" or "robes" if they fit in the applicable body slots, including "ordinary clothes"?

While not explicit, the rules on Body Slot Affinities (DMG, page 288, sidebar) suggest that you can. While some items in particular slots (gauntlets versus gloves) have different effect affinities, nothing there seems to exclude clothes.
At the worst, the rules on non-standard item slots (same as above) would allow it at a 50% cost increase. I would note that "harness of armor" (Lost Empires of Faerun, page 155) does exactly that, presenting a vest slot item with an armor bonus to armor class.
And the FAQ entry for monks suggests that such would not interfere with class ability limits.

Can you add armor special abilities to such items?

Again, while not explicit, that you can do so with bracers of armor strongly suggests you could do so with other items.

Can you add enhancement bonuses to armor to such items?

That is the most "out there" question.
The costs for bracers of armor and the sidebar allowing special abilities rather strongly precludes adding enhancement bonuses to such items. Not to mention the absurdity of having "+1 bracers of armor +1" and worse.
But what about magic vestment on a robe of the magi or the like?
There does not appear to be anything that prohibits it, but there also does not appear to be anything that allows for it. And there would definitely be some balance issues with it, much as with the above example of bracers. I would not allow it, and would not consider it suitably supported by the text.
Of course then someone will suggest just tacking magic vestment on your shoes, and leaving that to stack with your bracers or robe. That is likely to incite a DM to reach for some throwing dice.

For all of these, I would also note the ability to use armor crystals with such items (MIC, page 221, 2nd bullet point). So there is another set of additions possible for non-armor armor, along with another case of treating such items as armor for the purposes of magic.
This might support allowing magic vestment on such items, so I would still not allow it.

[Thurbane]

I think the approach is not correct.
We are not talking about clothes with an inherent armor bonus (which is armor), but clothes with an ENHANCEMENT bonus.
A tunic +2 AC, when you cast a CL12 Magic Vestment gives a total bonus of +3, not +5. A leather ARMOR, with inherent AC of 2, gives +5 when hit with the same spell

Magic clothes with an enhancement bonus to AC are like masterwork clothes with Magic Vestment and Permanency cast on them...
They use up your torso slot, and you cannot wear another magic item over or under them.

They are not considered armor for the purpose of class limitation (like monks).

There is no RAW for this, but most of the replies i read seem to consider the AC bonus being inherent to the clothes, instead of an enhancement bonus

Well, that's exactly what Curmudgeon used to argue against.

His argument was that with, say Robe of the Inferno, it has +4 Armor bonus to AC. Enhancement bonuses specifically stack with Armor Bonuses, so you add the enhancement bonus from the spell to the existing armor bonus from the item.

Although, the spell specifically says "outfit of regular clothing", so magical clothing may not qualify anyway.


Can you add armor bonuses to items other than "bracers" or "robes" if they fit in the applicable body slots, including "ordinary clothes"?

Not ordinary clothes, but MIC gives us a few examples that are neither Bracers nor Robes: Cloak of Battle, Impervious Vestment, Ring of Force Armor (DMG), and Psychoactive Skin of Ectoplasmic Armor (although this acts as armor).


For all of these, I would also note the ability to use armor crystals with such items (MIC, page 221, 2nd bullet point). So there is another set of additions possible for non-armor armor, along with another case of treating such items as armor for the purposes of magic.

Yes, that's something I only discovered while reading up for this thread. :smallsmile: It's kind of exciting: means you can have multiple armor crystals, beyond just armor and shield.

[Elves]

Yes, that's something I only discovered while reading up for this thread. :smallsmile: It's kind of exciting: means you can have multiple armor crystals, beyond just armor and shield.

And adding the +1 AC is only 1k per item. Of course the unspoken assumption was probably that you have to actually be benefiting from the item's AC bonus to get the crystal benefit.


Beekeeper's outfit IMO would qualify on the mechanical merits. It does provide an AC bonus. (And after all the AC bonus provided by normal armor is also situational, see touch atks/ff/denied dex to AC.) But I think it fails because it's classified in AEG as an "outfit" rather than armor. Clearly, if I ever get attacked by a ninja in a beekeeper outfit, I'll know I was wrong

[Thurbane]

Gnome Twistcloth and Cloth Armor exist, but are defined as armor rather than clothing.

The easiest way for Monks and the like to benefit from Armor Bonus are things like Bracers of Armor etc., which are more expensive per AC place than enhancing actual armor.

As other have said, allowing normal clothes to have an AC bonus of 0, and be able to receive enhancement bonuses, isn't going to break the game, but it will be a boost for high powered classes such as Wizards, as much as it will be for Monks.

[Zanos]

Gnome Twistcloth and Cloth Armor exist, but are defined as armor rather than clothing.

The easiest way for Monks and the like to benefit from Armor Bonus are things like Bracers of Armor etc., which are more expensive per AC place than enhancing actual armor.

As other have said, allowing normal clothes to have an AC bonus of 0, and be able to receive enhancement bonuses, isn't going to break the game, but it will be a boost for high powered classes such as Wizards, as much as it will be for Monks.
There are relatively cheap ways to reduce armor to 0 ASF and 0 ACP, much cheaper than enchanting your clothes to +X. A fey or githcraft mithral chainshirt with thistledown padding is around 2k and has no ASF and no ACP, and can be enchanted on top of the base +4 AC. Getting a +4 armor bonus from enchanted robes would cost 16k. Monks can't replicate that because even 0 ASF 0 ACP armor still counts as armor, and will disable their abilities.

And if you're paying 16k for what is effectively mage armor, maybe you should take a look at some 1st level pearls of power instead. Basically, wizards only benefit from enchanted clothes if they don't know what they're doing.

[rel]

Numerous class features stop working if the character wears armor.

Does anyone have definitive proof that regular clothing (not armor) can be enchanted like armor? If so, would that count as armor for the purposes of class features (is armor anything that provides an armor bonus or just armor and not clothing)?

As others have mentioned, there are plenty of precedents but the rules on the subject are sufficiently ambiguous that its hard to reach a consensus.
Easiest solution is to reskin the Bracers of Armour and have them occupy the body slot instead. Or charge extra for a slotless variant based on clothing like hotpants that don't conform to the D&D item slot system.

[Elves]

For normal clothes it's not ambiguous. "Armor bonus of 0 counts as an armor bonus" is a real stretch.

[Asmotherion]

As Rebel7284 said, it works the other way in 3.5. You need to show me rules that provide your statement.
The Armor list in the PHB is the primary source for what is (everything on the list) and what is not armor (anything left). Anything else needs specific statements to be considered "armor". This is confirmed by other "armor" lists (e.g. Arms & Equipment Guide book) that call out to extend the general list given in the PHB. Even specific exotic armor types outside of the PHB make this call outs.
You still lack any proof that clothes count as armor besides from the spell Magic Vestment. And the spell description is worded the way that it creates a specific exception to the "norm". And the norm (general rule) in this chase is that clothes aren't armor.



It is an enhancement bonus to armor not armor bonus.

________________

Magic Vestment (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicVestment.htm)

True; Though I'm not sure if it changes the implication.

[Crake]

Enhancement bonuses specifically stack with Armor Bonuses, so you add the enhancement bonus from the spell to the existing armor bonus from the item.

Nitpick: Enhancement bonuses to armor are not an actual bonus in and of themselves. An enhancement bonus with armor classes applies to a specific other kind of AC bonus. For example, you can have an enhancement bonus to your armor bonus (like in the form of enchanted armor, or from the magic vestment spell), and ALSO have an enhancement bonus to your natural armor (like from an amulet of natural armor, or the barkskin spell). These "stack" because they aren't a bonus to your AC, but rather they're modifying OTHER bonuses to your AC.

To the topic at hand, the fact that bracers of armor exist, and the fact that you can move magic properties between slots, and the fact that bracers of armor can be enchanted with special abilities, I don't see how there is even an argument to be had. The only argument that should be going on is whether or not it should incur the 1.5x cost modifier for an unusual body slot, but since, yknow, body is where armor goes, I'd say there's a pretty sizable arguement for it to not have the cost multiplier.

[Segev]

For normal clothes it's not ambiguous. "Armor bonus of 0 counts as an armor bonus" is a real stretch.Not sure how this is even a relevant thing to consider. Sure, you can argue it either way, but it doesn't matter in the face of the fact that you can still add an enhancement bonus to AC as an enchantment on something.

Bracers of armor and various robes provide further precedent and (more importantly) formulaic calculations to determine the cost of adding straight armor bonuses, even.

As some are fond of pointing out, the magic item creation rules are "guidelines" and thus very much up to the DM whether to permit any particular "legal" build of an item from them. This makes "a shirt with +3 armor bonus to AC" (or enhancement bonus to AC) that follows the same formulae as a magic robe or bracers of armor as valid as anything else you might custom-build using magic item creation rules.

[Thurbane]

So in short: can you add Armor Bonuses to items like robes etc. in the same way you would with Bracers of Armor? Yes.

Can you enchant and enhance a robe or other clothing with Enhancement Bonuses to Armor Class the same way and for the same price as you would with masterwork armor? General consensus is no.

[Segev]

Can you enchant and enhance a robe or other clothing with Enhancement Bonuses to Armor Class the same way and for the same price as you would with masterwork armor? General consensus is no.

I do not believe you are correct in your assessment of general consensus, here. Nor would that general consensus be in line with the RAW, especially in light of their nature as "guidelines for the DM." If you examine robes et al, their pricing seems in line with enchanting armor.

[Elves]

Apparently A&EG has rules for enchanting bracers of armor with special properties. 3.0, but if you're comfortable using that, this whole discussion becomes moot.

[Thurbane]

I do not believe you are correct in your assessment of general consensus, here. Nor would that general consensus be in line with the RAW, especially in light of their nature as "guidelines for the DM." If you examine robes et al, their pricing seems in line with enchanting armor.

I may have worded this badly, and been getting somewhat confused. From memory, I thought the Bracers of Armor bonus cost double double what armor Enhancement bonuses are, but I was misremembering. I may have been thinking of Amulet of Natural Armor or Ring of Deflection bonuses.

What I was trying to say is general consensus seems to be you can add Armor Bonuses to robes the same way you would with Bracers, but not adding enhancement bonuses the way you would with masterwork armor. They are subtly different, but as pointed out, the A&EG option for adding armor qualities to Bracers of Defence may render that somewhat irrelevant.

[Tiktakkat]

I do not believe you are correct in your assessment of general consensus, here. Nor would that general consensus be in line with the RAW, especially in light of their nature as "guidelines for the DM." If you examine robes et al, their pricing seems in line with enchanting armor.

While the costs for armor bonuses to robes and such are the same as the costs for enhancement bonuses to armor for armor, the effect is not. They very explicitly have different named effects, and so are different things. Further, adding armor bonuses can explicitly go to +8 non-Epic, while enhancement bonuses to armor are explicitly limited to +5 non-Epic.

As for the "guidelines", that involves the RAW definition of what qualifies as "armor" for a variety of rules over and above any theoretical RAW of the magic item "guidelines". If you push it that far, then indeed monks would not be able to use bracers of armor or the like without interfering with their class abilities.

[Vaern]

I do not believe you are correct in your assessment of general consensus, here. Nor would that general consensus be in line with the RAW, especially in light of their nature as "guidelines for the DM." If you examine robes et al, their pricing seems in line with enchanting armor.
The pricing for adding a pure armor bonus to AC as provided by magic item creation guidelines just happens to coincide with the cost of armor's effective enhancement bonus.


Apparently A&EG has rules for enchanting bracers of armor with special properties. 3.0, but if you're comfortable using that, this whole discussion becomes moot.

Google has provided me with access to the relevant bit, and right away I'm seeing a number of potential flaws with it. It doesn't seem like a promising entry to cite in this case...

The rules for creating epic items say that armor can't have an effective enhancement bonus greater than +5 without being considered epic. If bracers of armor were effectively the same thing as armor with AC 0 with an enhancement bonus, bracers of armor +6 would be 360,000 GP and it would only become more ludicrously expensive from there.

The rules for creating epic items also say that a magic item can't grant an armor bonus greater than +10, excluding armor's enhancement bonus, without being epic. Bracers of armor fall within this limit. The fact that they are non-epic despite granting armor bonuses of up to +8 indicates that they are not enhanced armor, and rather just an item granting a specific type of bonus. It also suggests that, while the highest printed bracers of armor are +8, you could technically make them up to +10 without breaching the epic barrier.

The rules for creating epic items say that magic armor with an effective enhancement bonus greater than +10 is epic. The Arms and Equipment Guide suggests that adding up to a +5 bonus in special properties would allow you to create what is effectively +13 armor, which would be epic and cost 1,690,000 GP rather than only 169,000 GP as it claims.

The definitions of epic items as established within the SRD and ELH indicate that the sidebar in the Arms and Equipment Guide is simply wrong on all counts. Bracers of Armor, if treated as armor, can't normally have a bonus of up to +8 because they would be epic; nor can they have a total effective bonus of up to +13 as they would be epic; nor, if treated simply as a wondrous item granting an armor bonus, are they strictly limited to a maximum armor bonus of +8, as +10 is still considered to be non-epic. The sidebar also seems to suggest that, just as bracers of armor can progress up to +8, a suit of magic armor can have an enhancement bonus of up to +8 which is also incorrect.

If you could enhance bracers of armor or a similar item as if it were truly armor, I would think that it should be done separately from its base armor bonus as the two are technically separate sets of magical properties. Start with the item's base power, then add an enhancement bonus on top of that, then add whatever armor properties you desire on top of that. You'd end up with something like +2 bracers of armor +6 of invulnerability, granting a total of 8 AC and costing 61,000 GP (36,000 for the bracers themselves, then 25,000 for an effective enhancement bonus of +4 on top of that).
It's clunky and awkward in a number of ways - the pricing, the naming, the overall effect, the... everything, really. But, putting an armor bonus on a clothing item and enhancing it as armor in this way would be much more consistent with otherwise established rules and limitations than the way AEG proposes.

[Elves]

AEG page for that rule?

[Maat Mons]

AEG says you can add special abilities to Bracers of Armor. And it tells you what the price is. So you can add special abilities to Bracers of Armor. And it costs what the AEG says it does. Specific trumps general.

[Vaern]

AEG page for that rule?

130


AEG says you can add special abilities to Bracers of Armor. And it tells you what the price is. So you can add special abilities to Bracers of Armor. And it costs what the AEG says it does. Specific trumps general.


Just as magic armor can never exceed a +8 enhancement bonus, bracers of armor never provide more than a +8 armor bonus.
The side bar says that the bracers of armor should conform to the general rule regarding magic armor and its limitations. However, it also mistakenly cites the maximum enhancement bonus of magic armor as +8. This isn't just a matter of specific vs. general rules allowing an exception for a particular magic item. This also makes it a matter of two sources in conflict regarding the same rule, which means the primary source takes precedence.

The DMG says the maximum enhancement bonus on magic armor is +5, not +8. As the primary source, it trumps AEG's claim that magic armor can't have an enhancement bonus greater than +8. It's also presenting the bracers' armor bonus and magic properties as conforming to the general rule regarding magic armor's enhancement bonus, so we should apply that same restriction. It should read:


Just as magic armor can never exceed a +5 enhancement bonus, bracers of armor can never provide more than a +5 armor bonus.

The DMG disagrees with AEG regarding the maximum enhancement bonus on armor.
The DMG disagrees with AEG regarding bracers of armor being limited to the same bonus as armor's enhancement bonus.
The end of the sidebar also indicates that the bulk of their ruling was written without the rules for epic equipment in mind, tacking on a mention of 'If you happen to be playing with the Epic Level Handbook...' at the end. This also conflicts with ELH's own rules, as it still indicates that magic armor - like bracers of armor - should be capable of a total effective enhancement bonus of up to +13 without being considered epic.
These aspects aren't presented as an exception to the rule. They are presented as the rule, which looking back at primary sources shows that they are not. Literally every aspect of the premise on which the rule is presented is incorrect.

[Crake]

130




The side bar says that the bracers of armor should conform to the general rule regarding magic armor and its limitations. However, it also mistakenly cites the maximum enhancement bonus of magic armor as +8. This isn't just a matter of specific vs. general rules allowing an exception for a particular magic item. This also makes it a matter of two sources in conflict regarding the same rule, which means the primary source takes precedence.

The DMG says the maximum enhancement bonus on magic armor is +5, not +8. As the primary source, it trumps AEG's claim that magic armor can't have an enhancement bonus greater than +8. It's also presenting the bracers' armor bonus and magic properties as conforming to the general rule regarding magic armor's enhancement bonus, so we should apply that same restriction. It should read:



The DMG disagrees with AEG regarding the maximum enhancement bonus on armor.
The DMG disagrees with AEG regarding bracers of armor being limited to the same bonus as armor's enhancement bonus.
The end of the sidebar also indicates that the bulk of their ruling was written without the rules for epic equipment in mind, tacking on a mention of 'If you happen to be playing with the Epic Level Handbook...' at the end. This also conflicts with ELH's own rules, as it still indicates that magic armor - like bracers of armor - should be capable of a total effective enhancement bonus of up to +13 without being considered epic.
These aspects aren't presented as an exception to the rule. They are presented as the rule, which looking back at primary sources shows that they are not. Literally every aspect of the premise on which the rule is presented is incorrect.

Have you considered that perhaps it was meant to read like this:

"Just as magic armor can never exceed a +5 enhancement bonus, bracers of armor can never provide more than a +8 armor bonus. "

If they were intended to be the same number it wouldn't make sense to put the same number twice, and would be more succinctly written like this:

"Just like magic armor, bracers of armor can never provide more than a +5 armor bonus. "

[Vaern]

Have you considered that perhaps it was meant to read like this:

"Just as magic armor can never exceed a +5 enhancement bonus, bracers of armor can never provide more than a +8 armor bonus. "

If they were intended to be the same number it wouldn't make sense to put the same number twice, and would be more succinctly written like this:

"Just like magic armor, bracers of armor can never provide more than a +5 armor bonus. "
If it were worded that way, magic full plate would always grant 5 AC because it prevents magic armor from granting more than a +5 armor bonus.
It lists the same number twice because armor's enhancement bonus and bracers of armor's armor bonus are not the same thing. It might have been meant to say +5 and +8, but with no errata or update to tell us what it meant or how to correct it we can only assume that it directly conflicts with previously established rules and is just dysfunctional and unusable.

[Maat Mons]

The sidebar does not say that Bracers of Armor "should conform to the general rule regarding magic armor and its limitations."

It states two specific limitations Bracers of Armor must conform to. It also reiterates the limitations magic armor must conform to. And it notes that the limitations on Bracers of Armor and the limitations on magic armor are analogous.

The fact that the Sidebar misstates the normal limit of enhancement bonus on magic armor only puts it in conflict with other sources with regard to the maximum enhancement bonus of magic armor. It isn't in conflict with regard to any other aspects of what it says. So all other aspects of what it says stand.

Crake is quite right that it was clearly mean to read "Just as magic armor can never exceed a +5 enhancement bonus, bracers of armor can never provide more than a +8 armor bonus." And no, that wouldn't mean that +5 full plate only gave +5 to AC.

Let's go ahead and parse it. "Just as A, B." This means:
A is true
B is true
A and B are analogous

A is "Magic armor can never exceed a +5 enhancement bonus." This is true, and does not mean that +5 full plate only provides a +5 AC bonus.

B is "Bracers of Armor can never provide more than a +8 armor bonus." This is also true, and does not mean that +5 full plate only provides a +5 AC bonus.

And finally, A and B are analogous. They are both upper limits on a thing. Two different things mind you. But both are upper limits. And this, too, does not mean that +5 full plate only provides a +5 AC bonus.

[MR_Anderson]

Numerous class features stop working if the character wears armor.

Does anyone have definitive proof that regular clothing (not armor) can be enchanted like armor? If so, would that count as armor for the purposes of class features (is armor anything that provides an armor bonus or just armor and not clothing)?

Clothing is not Armor.

While not specifically stated as such, it can be extrapolated from many references throughout the books.


You can wear clothing items under/over armor, I have never found where you can do that with actual armor.
You are also penalized for sleeping in armor, not clothing.
There are many abilities that would be lost by many characters if clothing was armor.
Magic Vestments only counts clothing as armor for “the purpose of this spell.”


While not found in the books I would classify clothing as “Armor-Like,” because just like there are Magic Spells there are Spell-Like Abilities that are not Spells but function the same.


It is an enhancement bonus to armor not armor bonus.

This is the closest statement in the thread to hit the nail on the head.

Magic Vestments should not be compared to Bracers of Armor.

The bracers are based on Mage Armor which creates Force Armor. Magic Vestments apply an enhancement bonus to an item.

I would allow Magic Vestments to be cast on almost anything and be used as a shield, and a monk certainly could wear cloths enchanted by Magic Vestments with no penalty.

As for Bracers of Armor, I would lean towards not allowing classes that are penalized for wearing armor to use abilities specifically prevented by armor.

Note: Wizards can wear armor, it is just the Arcane Spell Failure that they worry about.


As for the "guidelines", that involves the RAW definition of what qualifies as "armor" for a variety of rules over and above any theoretical RAW of the magic item "guidelines". If you push it that far, then indeed monks would not be able to use bracers of armor or the like without interfering with their class abilities.

I agree with that, but I would probably sit down and reconsider it if it were to come up in a campaign I was running, but my initial stance is Bracers of Armor create a type of Armor around the wearer.

[Vaern]

Crake is quite right that it was clearly mean to read "Just as magic armor can never exceed a +5 enhancement bonus, bracers of armor can never provide more than a +8 armor bonus." And no, that wouldn't mean that +5 full plate only gave +5 to AC.

I was referring specifically to this suggested wording, which drops mention of the enhancement bonus altogether for simplicity:


If they were intended to be the same number it wouldn't make sense to put the same number twice, and would be more succinctly written like this:

"Just like magic armor, bracers of armor can never provide more than a +5 armor bonus. "
Because A = B and B = A, "Just like bracers of armor, magic armor can never provide more than a +5 armor bonus." This suggested wording would inadvertently put a hard cap on the armor bonus that magic armor can give. We can't assume that the fact that "it lists the same number twice" is some sort of contextual hint that those numbers were supposed to be different, because truncating the phrasing for the sake of simplicity would reduce the specificity of the statement and potentially create complications elsewhere within the system.

And as I've said before, there is no errata, 3.5 update, or other official correction to this that I'm aware of, and without any of those we must accept what it says as-is. Inferring that they meant to say +5 because they bothered to write +8 twice isn't compelling evidence that they actually meant anything other than what they actually wrote. RAW doesn't particularly care what something is "clearly meant to say." All that matters is what it actually says.

The sidebar also says that the effective bonus for the item can go up to +13, which does contradict existing rules. As cited before, magic armor can't have an effective enhancement bonus including special abilities greater than +10 without being epic, and a magic item that grants an armor bonus to AC can not have a bonus greater than +10 without being epic. Regardless of which set of rules bracers of armor follows, they should become epic with an effective bonus of +11 or greater which would put the sidebar in conflict with epic item creation and pricing rules. Though, since ELH never takes magic armor properties on items that are not magic armor into consideration, I suppose one might argue for some gray area regarding the "effective bonus" not counting as an actual bonus.

[Elves]

Checked out the AEG bracers of armor rules...kind of bizarre. First wrongly claims that magic armor can have a maximum enhancement bonus of +8, then allows bracers of armor to have an effective enhancement bonus of +13 pre-epic. The paperback 3.0 supplements are known for being low quality/devs still unfamiliar with the system...it's wacky for sure.

Technically I guess specific over general though.

[Zanos]

As for Bracers of Armor, I would lean towards not allowing classes that are penalized for wearing armor to use abilities specifically prevented by armor.

Note: Wizards can wear armor, it is just the Arcane Spell Failure that they worry about.
I am pretty sure bracers of armor do not restrict class features; there's a reason that +8 bracers are 64k and full plate is 1.5k, and it's not just proficiency.

[Thurbane]

Also worth noting that A&EG is un-updated 3.0 material, so its use in a 3.5 requires DM adjudicaton - the DM may feel it needs tweaking for use in a 3.5 game.


I am pretty sure bracers of armor do not restrict class features; there's a reason that +8 bracers are 64k and full plate is 1.5k, and it's not just proficiency.

Agreed. I've never seen anyone question a Monk using BoA, as it is unequivocally NOT armor. It shouldn't interfere with his class features any more than a Ring of Protection or Amulet of Natural Armor.

[Vizzerdrix]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In order to prove that clothes are not armor by RAW, you have to quote the section of the rules that explicitly says that clothes are not armor. You can't do this, because no such text exists. There's lots of places that imply that clothes are not armor, but nowhere does it explicitly say that they aren't. Thus, a DM who decided to consider clothes to be armor wouldn't be houseruling, merely adopting an unusual interpretation of the rules.

Then enchant my ham sandwich with fortification and strap it to my chest, for no place in all of the books does it say my sandwich isn't also armor as well.


If you're a DM responding to a player who wants magic clothes, I'd just let them have it. Tell them you're allowing a custom item based on Bracers of Armor, but occupying a different body slot. Britches of Armor, let's say.

In all of 3.5 their are NO magic pants. Like, 2 or three nipple rings, but zero magic pants.

[Thurbane]

Just a bit more on Monks and Bracers of Armor: PHB II (p.219) suggests Bracers or Armor as recommended gear for Monks.

BoA also feature heavily in stat blocks of NPC Monks in various sources.

I don't think there is any reading that BoA should interfere with Monk abilities. Looking at PHB II etc. I wouldn't even call it RAI that they shouldn't be wearing them.

[Zaile]

The fluff/reasoning of the "doesn't work in armor" abilities is that the weight, bulk, and movement restrictions of said armor interfere with abilities that require "unfettered movement" (monk) or " Armor of any type interferes with a sorcerer’s gestures, which can cause his spells with somatic components to fail" of arcane casters. Clothing specifically does not count as armor, but can receive enhancement bonuses (see magic robes).

I have always played that clothing can be enchanted, as so many mid-level+ robes, and provide enhancement bonuses to AC. After all, enhancement bonuses do not stack. Now if you have a DM that uses item HP rules or likes destroying things, clothing has 0 hardness and 2 HP/inch (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm). One AOE and naked compared to other armor materials. IRCC the increased hardness HP language is specific to only shields and weapons, and does not apply to clothing.

[Zanos]

Equipment is specifically only damaged if you roll a nat 1 on your save. Then you look up the 4 'most likely' damaged items on the table and roll a 1d4, and then the item gets it's own save. You can also remake destroyed items for half cost with the appropriate feats.

Still, a concern if you're wearing something worth 64k, or even more. Might be worth casting hardening, matter manipulation, or augment object(or all of them) on your gear if your DM uses those rules.

[Maat Mons]

Okay, yes. That wording would limit max total bonus, as you say. Sorry, I thought you were directing that comment at the earlier part of his post.

Anyway, you're right that it doesn't matter what number the text probably meant to give for maximum enhancement bonus to armor. But, at least in this case, it also doesn't matter what it actually says. Because at the end of the day, the DMG is the primary source for the maximum value of enhancement bonus that can be placed on armor. So no matter what AEG says, it will always be +5, because if AEG says anything else, it is overridden by primary source rules.

And what AEG claims about magic armor has no bearing on the rules it provides for Bracers of Armor either. Because Bracers of Armor are not armor, in spite of the name, and are not subject to rules that only govern armor.

Speaking of which, the +10 maximum effective bonus thing in the DMG only applies to armor and shields. Unless there's a more generally-worded restriction that's escaped my notice. And page 123 of ELH doesn't even have that limitation reiterated. It does have a bullet point saying an item (other than enchanted armor) can't give an armor bonus of higher than +10. But Bracers of Armor +8 with Heavy Fortification only give an armor bonus of +8. So no worries there. The effective armor bonus is +13, sure. But as I said, it doesn't establish and cap on effective armor bonus. Just armor bonus.

And even if Bracers of Armor did violate one of the non-epic limitations in ELH, it wouldn't actually change the price. Bracers of Armor are the primary source for the price of Bracers of Armor, as well as the most specific text on the matter. So nothing the ELH says is capable of changing the price even if it did apply. Everything the ELH says about price is only capable of changing the price of custom items. For any pre-published item, the text of the item itself overrides the ELH.

It's sort of like how items can and do go against the item pricing guidelines in the DMG, and the DMG does not override the price given in the descriptions of those items. All ELH actually says is to modify those guidelines to include a x10 in some cases. This slight addendum to the DMG guidelines don't actually give them any more power to trump the descriptions of specific, pre-written items.

[Feldar]

So, the other thread about the Maiden of Pain build got me wondering.

Does a chainmail bikini count as armor or clothes?

If the former, then is the diffentiation between armor and clothes material used for construction?

[Nifft]

Does a chainmail bikini count as armor or clothes?

Neither.

It counts as a fetish.

[Gruftzwerg]

@ Bracers of Armor & "A&EG":


Just as magic armor can never exceed a +8 enhancement bonus, bracers of armor never provide more than a +8 armor bonus.

Imho things like this happen if you excessively edit your text. I know what I'm talking about here..^^ And if multiple people did edit this ability, it can only be worse xD


The two parts of the sentence don't fit together.

The first part talks about "enhancement bonuses" which are by RAW limited to +5. This is later confirmed in the "effective enhancement bonuses" example later which uses +8 bracers as base and adds special bonuses up to +5 for an effective max level of +13 (pre epic). The epic lvl example later confirms this again.

The second part of the sentence tells us that Bracers of Armor can have up to +8 armor bonus (like real armor can have, maybe they intended to tell us that?!?). But we did already know that by default DMG definition of the bracers.

But even if the editor had failed here, somehow both RAW and RAI still come to the same result:
- up to 8 armor bonus
- up to +5 enhancement bonus worth of special armor abilities (excludes "enhancement bonus to armor" sadly..)
- when epic: up to +10 enhancement bonus worth of special armor abilities (still excluding enhancement bonuses)

[Jay R]

After more than 60 posts, only one fact is clear, unambiguous, and undeniable:

We Do Not Agree.

It therefore follows that this will be a DM judgment call in each game it comes up in, no matter how certain each of us is that our interpretation is correct.

[Gruftzwerg]

After more than 60 posts, only one fact is clear, unambiguous, and undeniable:

We Do Not Agree.

It therefore follows that this will be a DM judgment call in each game it comes up in, no matter how certain each of us is that our interpretation is correct.

My 1st thought: I disagree with this statement! (and I really mean this..)

My 2nd thought: But that means that I agree "that we don't agree"..

My 3rd thought: Even real life has dysfunctional thought loops...

[Segev]

[The chainmail bikini] counts as a fetish.

Does that mean you can use it as a Divine Focus? Possibly for druid magic? Shaman? :smallamused:

Sorry, I had to make the pun.

[Nifft]

Does that mean you can use it as a Divine Focus? Possibly for druid magic? Shaman? :smallamused:

It's too metal for a Druid, and Kink Shaman is prohibited.

[Segev]

It's too metal for a Druid, and Kink Shaman is prohibited.

Nonsense! Sickles are fine with druids, and we've established the chainmail bikini is not metal armor!

[Nifft]

Nonsense! Sickles are fine with druids, and we've established the chainmail bikini is not metal armor! Oh, you thought "too metal" only meant armor?

No, you see, Druids are hippies, and "too metal" is a musical prohibition -- not any kind of armor restriction.

[Thurbane]

Does a chainmail bikini count as armor or clothes?

You know, the description of the Harness of Armor in LEoF sounds a bit like that: "These simple crossed baldrics of leather and chainmail provide all the benefits of wearing armor with none of the problems that a metal shell can cause in the scorching sun". :smallbiggrin:

[Segev]

Oh, you thought "too metal" only meant armor?

No, you see, Druids are hippies, and "too metal" is a musical prohibition -- not any kind of armor restriction.

But... their entry only says they're against metal armor! I think you've just not met enough Chaotic Neutral and Neutral Evil druids. They can be QUITE metal.

[MR_Anderson]

I am pretty sure bracers of armor do not restrict class features; there's a reason that +8 bracers are 64k and full plate is 1.5k, and it's not just proficiency.

As I noted, I would have to reconsider when faced with what ever it was that was in question.

If a wizard casts Mage Armor, they are Armored. Bracers of Armor work because of Mage Armor.

I’m not saying it effects every ability, but I would consider it like I consider everything else, but remember mage armor effects incorporeal creatures, so there is a possibility BoA could impact certain abilities.

[Drelua]

Personally, I would allow clothes to be enchanted with an armor bonus on a simple argument. There are a variety items of clothing which grant an armor bonus. These items can be crafted. Therefore, you can craft items of clothing which grant an armor bonus.

I doubt it's strictly RAW since you can't generally extrapolate custom item creation rules from existing specific items, but if these forums can't come up with a RAW answer then I doubt there is one so it's good enough for me. It's not like it unbalances anything, I can't think of any character that would benefit much from this over bracers. Assuming the character has arms, which I think is generally a safe assumption.


Does a chainmail bikini count as armor or clothes?

Either clothing or jewelry, depending how much it covers.