PDA

View Full Version : Clockwork Armor questions [Clarification/Ruling]



TheGeek
2008-05-29, 05:32 PM
Clockwork armor (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cw/20070212a)

Okay, so it's not exactly a clarification, but it was halfway between being a clarification and a homebrew rule, so here I am.

It is listed as granting a +4 bonus to Dex, but no Maximum Dexterity bonus is mentioned, nor are Check Penalties and Arcane Spell Failure.

It seems to me that all of these would be somewhat better than full plate, but I have no idea.

Is there perhaps a further expansion on the Clockwork armor as presented here that gives more detail?

If not, what have other GMs decided? I hope to include this in my game.

Frosty
2008-05-29, 06:08 PM
Holy crap. It's POWER ARMOR. Anyone got a picture of this thing?

sikyon
2008-05-29, 08:00 PM
The article doesn't meantion max dex bonus, therefore there is none.

Solo
2008-05-29, 08:02 PM
Clockwork armor (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cw/20070212a)

Okay, so it's not exactly a clarification, but it was halfway between being a clarification and a homebrew rule, so here I am.

It is listed as granting a +4 bonus to Dex, but no Maximum Dexterity bonus is mentioned, nor are Check Penalties and Arcane Spell Failure.

It seems to me that all of these would be somewhat better than full plate, but I have no idea.

Is there perhaps a further expansion on the Clockwork armor as presented here that gives more detail?

If not, what have other GMs decided? I hope to include this in my game.

I'd take the Fullplate dex bonus and figure in the expansion allowed by something with mithral in it.

Reinboom
2008-05-29, 08:09 PM
I'd take the Fullplate dex bonus and figure in the expansion allowed by something with mithral in it.

So... 3?

I disagree with this, for something that works to enhance your dexterity, making your more nimble, it'd be odd for it to cap it. "Suddenly, at this point, it no longer works to enhance upon your abilities. Sorry. :smallfrown:"

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-29, 08:14 PM
Wow, it seems good but it could be a buncha crap. Can it be smacked with area effects directly?

FlyMolo
2008-05-30, 09:14 AM
Yes, I think so. It's retarded awesome, though. Fun stuff. That whole clockwork wonders article set is retarded awesome.

Person_Man
2008-05-30, 09:18 AM
Clockwork Armor has been around for a while. I actually had a side quest in one of my campaigns where various pieces of ancient Gnomish clockwork armor were spread around the continent, and the PCs could go around collecting it if they bothered to take the time using Diplomacy, Gather Info, Decipher Script, a few side dungeons, etc.

TheGeek
2008-05-30, 01:59 PM
It says right in there that a certain circumstance could make you lose your Dex bonus to AC (if the suit breaks down), so I think there should be a Max Dex bonus of some kind.

As for the ACP and ASF, I have no idea.

Deth Muncher
2008-05-30, 02:40 PM
The only deal I know about ASF is that if you cast without Heavy Armor Prof., you have 90% ASF. If you've got the Prof, you're good to go.

TheGeek
2008-05-30, 06:01 PM
Well, I know that--it says it in the description.

But does that mean that if you have the proficiency, it has no ASF?

I think this is more homebrew than anything else.

For comparison, I think we could use the Ironman suit from the movie that just came out.

He seemed to have a pretty good Max Dex bonus there, and very little-to-no ACP. What do you think?

FlyMolo
2008-05-30, 08:41 PM
Negative ACP. He can jump into the stratosphere, remember? Sort of.

And climb much better than his aging only human self can.

excuse me: THAT MOVIE WAS TOTALLY AMAZING!

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-30, 08:44 PM
THAT MOVIE WAS TOTALLY AMAZING!

Nah, the movie was really good. The AMAZING thing was using the Iron Man riff, though I still stand by the fact that Painkiller fits Iron Man better if you look at the lyrics.

Chronos
2008-05-30, 10:02 PM
It's a shame that Tony didn't try to cast any spells in the suit, so we could figure out the ASF, too.

Fizban
2008-05-31, 12:27 AM
It's not based on any existing suit of armor, it merely grants bonuses, and penalties if the user does not have proficiency. Therefore, I say it has no ACP, ASF, or max dex bonus, if the user has proficiency. As someone said above, it makes you more dexterous, why would it penalize you too? (You can rationalize it, but then you're intentionally making it more complicated).

There was a homebrew thread a while back trying to make Iron Man. I suggested using clockwork armor and adding a built-in runestaff, allowing the wearer to expend their own energy to create effects, such as flying, lazers, rockets, and so on. I'll go dig up the thread, I was rather proud of that set up.

Edit: well I got sidetracked, but here's the thread: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80239&highlight=iron .

Mewtarthio
2008-05-31, 12:37 AM
It's a shame that Tony didn't try to cast any spells in the suit, so we could figure out the ASF, too.

What about that Marvel crossover in which Doctor Strange wears the Iron Man armor?

No, I've never actually heard about that crossover, but you cannot possibly convince me that it doesn't exist out there somewhere.

TheGeek
2008-05-31, 11:19 AM
Well, I personally agree with the no (or should that be infinite?) Max Dex bonus, and perhaps ASF, but it seems like he'd have trouble swimming in that suit.

Perhaps just a penalty to swim? That's the only skill I can see it affecting.

Or not, it's hard to tell. Any aerodynamically-savvy folks out there who could guess as to the suit's ability in water?

With my +5 skill check in knowledge (Physics), I can't get an answer by taking 10.

Fizban, I saw that thread, and thought it was great. That's actually the reason I brought up the Iron Man reference. ;) Good work with the Runestaff, by the way.

sikyon
2008-05-31, 11:29 AM
Well, I personally agree with the no (or should that be infinite?) Max Dex bonus, and perhaps ASF, but it seems like he'd have trouble swimming in that suit.

Perhaps just a penalty to swim? That's the only skill I can see it affecting.

Or not, it's hard to tell. Any aerodynamically-savvy folks out there who could guess as to the suit's ability in water?

With my +5 skill check in knowledge (Physics), I can't get an answer by taking 10.

Fizban, I saw that thread, and thought it was great. That's actually the reason I brought up the Iron Man reference. ;) Good work with the Runestaff, by the way.

I'd rule that the strength bonus doesn't apply to your swim checks as it already loads 250 pounds and 180 of that is compensated for by the suit's mechanics. So just no strength bonus and the +70 pounds on your body.

Of course I'd also rule the +4 strength does not apply to encumberance. THat's the way it'd typically work.

Animefunkmaster
2008-05-31, 11:38 AM
It is listed as granting a +4 bonus to Dex, but no Maximum Dexterity bonus is mentioned, nor are Check Penalties and Arcane Spell Failure.


Creatures without that proficiency [Insert: Heavy Armor ProF.] may still wear the armor but suffer a -8 Armor Check penalty to all the usual skills and suffer a 90% chance of spell failure.

I think the info is fairly clear. The only little snafu is that, by the wording, their Spell Failure only applies with non proficiency... Since spell failure doesn't work that way, I think it is a fair bet to think of it as 90%... real steep... but mithril and battle caster can do it

sikyon
2008-05-31, 11:49 AM
I think the info is fairly clear. The only little snafu is that, by the wording, their Spell Failure only applies with non proficiency... Since spell failure doesn't work that way, I think it is a fair bet to think of it as 90%... real steep... but mithril and battle caster can do it

I disagree, that's not a "little snafu" that's pretty explicit. Spell faliure is only defined for non proficient use. Presumably, since this armor grants dexterity then if you are proficient then the armor doesn't hamper you at all.

TheGeek
2008-05-31, 11:58 AM
I'd rule that the strength bonus doesn't apply to your swim checks as it already loads 250 pounds and 180 of that is compensated for by the suit's mechanics. So just no strength bonus and the +70 pounds on your body.

Of course I'd also rule the +4 strength does not apply to encumberance. THat's the way it'd typically work.

I agree with the first part, I think that's right.

But.. I'd say, personally, that the +4 STR does apply to your carrying capacity, I can't see a reason for it to not.

sikyon
2008-05-31, 01:01 PM
I agree with the first part, I think that's right.

But.. I'd say, personally, that the +4 STR does apply to your carrying capacity, I can't see a reason for it to not.

Ok, it works like this:

This is a suit of powered armor. It has servos and gears and motors to help you move.

It weighs 250 pounds. However, when you wear it, it still weights 70 pounds as it "supports much of its own weight". This means that the suit cannot support all of it's own weight.

What does this mean for encumbrance? It means that the suit is not supporting all of it's own weight and THEN granting you a +4 bonus to strength, it means that the support comes with a +4 bonus to strength. But this bonus should not apply to encumbrance as the suit is already encumbering you.

But why does this grant a strength bonus anyways?

Take to hit and damage rolls. It would be like strapping 180 pounds to you and having the muscle available to move it. That makes you hit harder and do more damage.

A better interpretation would have been that the suit weighs 250 pounds but adds +4 strength. This is not entirely accurate, however, as a suit should add a fixed amount of strength (180 pounds worth). Strength does not scale linearly, but it's much easier to just specify a modifier. To help keep the feel that it does scale linearly, they've specified that the suit's +4 strength bonus relives 180 pounds off of it's own weight. It's the simplest thing they can do without saying "between 1-5 Str it adds +8 str, between 6-10 str it adds +6 str, between 10-15 str it adds +4 str, between 16-22 str it adds +3 str", etc.

Animefunkmaster
2008-05-31, 01:29 PM
I disagree, that's not a "little snafu" that's pretty explicit. Spell faliure is only defined for non proficient use. Presumably, since this armor grants dexterity then if you are proficient then the armor doesn't hamper you at all.

What is easier to believe, the wording is muddled, or this is the ONLY Heavy armor in the ENTIRE GAME that doesn't offer Spell Failure as a base... Dependant on proficiency. Is it honestly easier to believe that the entirety of the armor check penalty goes away with proficiency (which isn't how the feat works). You know, because heavy/ non magical hydrolic armor actually makes you better at tumbling than wearing nothing at all.

If it DID work that way, you would know the armor would require exotic armor prof.

The absence of a rule does not mean you can do it. It does not explicitly say no arcane spell failure with proficiency.

Even look at the fluff:

"This is different. You just looked dumb with the turtle buckler," said Ragdar. "With this I feel stronger. Look!" He began moving the mechanism through the steps of a sword exercise, with occasional jerks and clanks.

That must be good for spell casters.

The Necroswanso
2008-05-31, 01:44 PM
Nah, the movie was really good. The AMAZING thing was using the Iron Man riff, though I still stand by the fact that Painkiller fits Iron Man better if you look at the lyrics.
Painkiller's cool, but Pshychotron works ten billion times better... Times infinity.

Anyway, look at it logically.
It provides the same bonus as Full Plate. However it improves your strength and dexterity. Thus if you're wearing it, you probaly don't have the best dex in the world... Or you're the world's craziest fighter. So I would say a +2 max dex at best.
ASF: Maybe something around 50%, maybe lower. It's obviously not built to cast spells.

sikyon
2008-05-31, 02:04 PM
What is easier to believe, the wording is muddled, or this is the ONLY Heavy armor in the ENTIRE GAME that doesn't offer Spell Failure as a base... Dependant on proficiency.

What is eaisier to believe, that they specifically set a spell failure chance for nonprocifiency as this is special armor or that they never read over it again?

Occom's razor is not useful in real life.


Is it honestly easier to believe that the entirety of the armor check penalty goes away with proficiency (which isn't how the feat works). You know, because heavy/ non magical hydrolic armor actually makes you better at tumbling than wearing nothing at all.


The AC penalty/Spell faliure goes away with both proficiency and setting the controls properly. Read it again, carefully. You need to set the controls properly to gain the dex bonus, which presumably allows you to make the delicate hand gestures as it actually adds dex.



The absence of a rule does not mean you can do it. It does not explicitly say no arcane spell failure with proficiency.


If no spell faliure with procificiency is specified, then there is none. Pretty simple. You're argueing on thin ice. Rules tell you the property of an item. If a rule doesn't exist, the item does not have that property. Pretty simple.



Even look at the fluff:


That must be good for spell casters.

No proficiency. Arcane Spellcasters rarely have proficinecy with heavy armor.

Animefunkmaster
2008-05-31, 03:47 PM
What is eaisier to believe, that they specifically set a spell failure chance for nonprocifiency as this is special armor or that they never read over it again?

Occom's razor is not useful in real life.

Although 3.x is an attempt at a simulation it is not real life by any stretch of the imagination. I fail to see how using logic for a space in the rules that is not clear is anything less than reasonable.

I feel like it is easier to believe that they missed a sentence. Given past typos and many erratas of printed material (which one would assume to have more care than online material), I feel it is entirely logical to assume that they failed to specifically state an armor check penalty, maximum dexterity, and Arcane Spell Failure. If the OP didn't agree with me here, we wouldn't have a thread.


The AC penalty/Spell faliure goes away with both proficiency and setting the controls properly. Read it again, carefully. You need to set the controls properly to gain the dex bonus, which presumably allows you to make the delicate hand gestures as it actually adds dex.

I disagree. While it does increase dexterity, the specific ability score is used for more than 'delicate hand gestures'. Similar to the difference in Charisma (Physical Appearance and Magical Force), Dexterity is jumbled together to represent reflexes, accuracy, balance, and hand eye coordination. I believe the dex boosting effect is better represented of the reflexes aspect of dexterity. After all, setting the controls is about the strength boosting and force of leg motors.

Even so, Arcane Spell Failure is not tied to dexterity, but rather the armor itself.


If no spell faliure with procificiency is specified, then there is none. Pretty simple. You're argueing on thin ice. Rules tell you the property of an item. If a rule doesn't exist, the item does not have that property. Pretty simple.

Sight your source. If the rules don't exist is not a valid argument, it has never been a valid argument, and will never be a valid argument.

What the rules do say:


Armor Check Penalty

Any armor heavier than leather hurts a character’s ability to use some skills.


No proficiency. Arcane Spellcasters rarely have proficinecy with heavy armor.

Have you ever heard of a Gish?

sikyon
2008-05-31, 05:05 PM
Sight your source. If the rules don't exist is not a valid argument, it has never been a valid argument, and will never be a valid argument.


Oh great then I guess that my shortsword is also thundering because no rules say that it isn't. Seriously, common. If the rules don't exist then the property doesn't exist.



Armor Check Penalty

Any armor heavier than leather hurts a character’s ability to use some skills.

Oh yeah that's real specific. "Some skills". Hey, guess what, maybe that skill is going on bridges which can only support 200 pounds. Specific rules > general rules.


Even so, Arcane Spell Failure is not tied to dexterity, but rather the armor itself.

You seem to want a physical explanation, I am giving you one.

TheGeek
2008-05-31, 07:18 PM
Hey guys, let's not start an argument here.

I'm not asking for you to fight about whether there should be an ACP or anything like that.

I'm asking for your opinions on what I should houserule this as, and why. At the moment, I'm leaning towards Sikyon's idea.