[Proposal] Imposter's Armor

[twilsemail]

So your saying that the Imposters Chain would cover the leather completely so it looks like i'm not wearing armour at all or would you see the armour through it?

You shouldn't be able to see it through most outfits. The Leather Armor in the PHB is fairly standard Female Fantasy Armor with bare arms and midriff. There's certainly no mechanical impact, other than a higher AC while wearing clothing.

 

[stonegod]

How did they manage in 3.x without the ability to alter their outfits?

Shiftweave cloth: Can turn into 5 separate outfits (specified at creation); does not affect armor nor can it imitate it.

Could easily propose a Cloth that does the same. Not quite as polymorphic as Imposter, no bluff version (in that version).

 

[BloodPrincess]

heres the 3.5 version from the SRD

Glamered

A suit of armor with this ability appears normal. Upon command, the armor changes shape and form to assume the appearance of a normal set of clothing. The armor retains all its properties (including weight) when glamered. Only a true seeing spell or similar magic reveals the true nature of the armor when disguised.
Moderate illusion; CL 10th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, disguise self; Price +2,700 gp.

 

[KarinsDad]

How is this particular bit of mechanics in any way different from Summoned Armor?

The mechanics are not.

The difference is that Summoned Armor doesn't give a PC an instant disguise. Summoned Armor can be any armor because it's not as potentially game unbalancing as instant disguise can be.

Imposter's Armor needs a downside to be balanced. As written, the fact that the user would be using heavy armor is such a downside since the heavy armor users would have difficulty getting the proper skills to really take advantage of it (and they have the AC penalty). Light armor users would have difficulty of getting the proper armor feats to really take advantage of it.

By changing the rules for the armor, it gives a major advantage to the light armor users that the heavy armor users don't get.

Again, this was mostly for RP support of the most poorly supported PC race in the entire game. Mechanically, I can pull of what I want without this proposal. I just think that the necessary steps are silly.

If we make it a house rule, it isn't limited to the Changeling race. It gives all light armor users a way to have a better version of Summoned Armor at the exact same price.

While it is true that the Changeling has limited feat support, the ability to change one's entire appearance in an instant would be a huge RPing advantage.

Gaining the ability to change into any humanoid and any clothing is almost the equivalent of Invisibility at will.

To me, that's really potent.

A player who wants that and all of the disguise related skills (i.e. Bluff, Insight, Perception, Stealth) should have to pay for it. Either by being a heavy armor user and acquiring the appropriate skills, or by being a light armor user and acquiring the appropriate armor feats.

We shouldn't hand the harder to acquire portion of it (instant change of clothing) to him on a silver platter with a single relatively cheap magic item.

I guess a different option would be to propose a feat or something that allowed a Changeling to alter their clothes.

It's called a Hat of Disguise.


It might not be apparent, but it looks like the designers might have actually thought this one out.

To get near perfect shapeshifting (i.e. where appearance, armor, and equipment changes) is difficult and properly so.

Hat of Disguise can be foiled by tactile or audible senses.

Imposter's Armor loses AC and does nothing for other equipment.

Potion of Mimicry uses up a healing surge and is expensive for the higher bonuses and has the same disadvantages of a Hat of Disguise.

Face Stealing Ring is higher Paragon level and is also an illusion.

 

[twilsemail]

KD in the end, given you're given the choice between the following:

A.) A PC wears Leather Armor and Imposter's Armor at the same time. When they use the disguise power there is no penalty to their Bluff whatsoever and they maintain their AC indefinitely. This is currently suppoted mechanically, but just silly.

B.) A PC wears Imposter's Leather Armor and while able to disguise themselves by transforming their armor, they also lose 2 AC due to switching down to cloth armor.

You want to choose A because... ?

Also note that a Light Armor PC can also invest in Unarmored Agility and lose no AC at all when wearing Imposter's Armor. It does cost them a feat, but this is not the Stat and feat investment I'd originally assumed.

 

[KarinsDad]

KD in the end, given you're given the choice between the following:

A.) A PC wears Leather Armor and Imposter's Armor at the same time. When they use the disguise power there is no penalty to their Bluff whatsoever and they maintain their AC indefinitely. This is currently suppoted mechanically, but just silly.

B.) A PC wears Imposter's Leather Armor and while able to disguise themselves by transforming their armor, they also lose 2 AC due to switching down to cloth armor.

You want to choose A because... ?

Also note that a Light Armor PC can also invest in Unarmored Agility and lose no AC at all when wearing Imposter's Armor. It does cost them a feat, but this is not the Stat and feat investment I'd originally assumed.

Who says that a PC can do "A"?

There is an armor item slot, just like there is a neck, head, and arm item slot. A PC can only wear one set of magical armor.

I don't know of too many DMs that would allow a player to wear a set of magical armor with a set of mundane armor simultaneously. There are no explicit rules against it to my knowledge, but the Character Builders won't allow it.

Given this, even Unarmored Agility is less than totally useful since the armor enchantment bonus is lost as well. In fact, with Imposter's Armor, the Unarmored Agility feat just plain doesn't work at all because the PC is not wearing cloth armor. It just looks like he is. Ditto for Summoned Armor. He's wearing a heavier armor and Unarmored Agility doesn't stack with that (the first magic item worn takes precedence rule).


"A" is called an attempt to game the system and WotC has a rule against, for example, having bracers and using a shield, even though physically a case could be made for a PC to be holding both.


Note: One could wear Summoned armor and magical cloth armor, but the Summoned armor explicitly will not come back until the magical cloth armor is taken off.

 

[twilsemail]

There is an armor item slot, just like there is a neck, head, and arm item slot. A PC can only wear one set of magical armor.

Never said option A involved more than one suit of magical armor.

Given this, even Unarmored Agility is less than totally useful since the armor enchantment bonus is lost as well.

Do you have a rules source on that? It's not in AV or the updates that I have at hand.

"A" is called an attempt to game the system and WotC has a rule against, for example, having bracers and using a shield, even though physically a case could be made for a PC to be holding both.

Not true in the slightest. WotC has a rule against gaining the benefits of two Magical items occupying the same slot. By the logic you're presenting here no PC can use Iron Armbands of Power and a shield. You should pass this on to the two judges that are currently using this combination. R1 and EvoKB.




I find it hypocritical that you’re for RAW 99% of the time and against it this once. Option A works within the current rules as they’re written. Given the choice between A and B, you choose A. Correct?

I hate using RAW arguments, by the way. It sucks and leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[KarinsDad]

Not true in the slightest. WotC has a rule against gaining the benefits of two Magical items occupying the same slot. By the logic you're presenting here no PC can use Iron Armbands of Power and a shield. You should pass this on to the two judges that are currently using this ombination.

The rules also have physical limits, armbands and a shield being an explicit called out exception to the physical limits.

You can benefit from only one magic item that you wear in your arms slot even if, practically speaking, you can wear bracers and carry a shield at the same time. You benefit from the item you put on first; any other item you put in the same item slot doesn’t function for you until you take off the first item. Sometimes there are physical limitations as well—you can’t wear two helms at the same time.

Practically speaking, one cannot have two shields on the same arm. Two helmets. Two armors.

Having armbands and a shield is a physical limitation exception explicitly called out in this section as far as wearing and carrying, but not using. If you read the bolded sentence here, there is a RAW case to not allow the two at the same time because that sentence is not explicitly limited to magical functionality. It states that the second item does not function. People only assume that this is talking solely about magical functionality because the second sentence comes after the first sentence and they make a "context" association. But that's not explicitly what the bolded sentence states.

One can carry a shield based on the first sentence, but that doesn't mean that one can use it and gain it's functionality if that PC has armbands on as well. This, of course, is debatable.

But allowing someone to wear two sets of armor is not RAW or RAI. Since we are talking about a slot item, please show the rule where it states that armor is different than a helmet and can have two physical sets of armor in the slot.

Or two sets of boots?

Or using two weapons in the same hand.

I consider these to be physical limitations and trying to get around them to be an attempt to game the system.

I find it hypocritical that you’re for RAW 99% of the time and against it this once.

Could you cool your jets with regard to the backhanded calling me a hypocrit?

Option A works within the current rules as they’re written. Given the choice between A and B, you choose A. Correct?

I choose neither.

A is not allowed and B is not allowed from my reading of RAW.


In fact, Summoned Armor explicitly doesn't allow the armor to come back if the user is wearing any other armor (including cloth armor). To me, this is just another indication that RAI is that only one armor can be worn at a time.

 

[twilsemail]

The rules also have physical limits, armbands and a shield being an explicit called out exception to the physical limits.

[quote=PHB pg. 224][/quote]

​

​

​

​

​

​

These are called item slots, and they provide a practical limit to the number of magic items you can wear and use. You can benefit from only one magic item that you wear in your arms slot even if, practically speaking, you can wear bracers and carry a shield at the same time.

​

I read that as an example on how slots are meant to be used, as opposed to an exception to the following rule. Were it an exception to the following rule, I feel it would follow that rule, instead of vice versa.​

They could have just as easily used Cloaks and Amulets or Boots and Greaves or Circlets and Masks or Belts and Girdles or Thimbles and Gloves or (if they were in the PHB) saddles and barding.​

Moreover, the entry only names shields and bracers. Can you show me where it calls Armbands bracers? Does this also apply to bracelets? There are more than two types of items in the arms slot. Are only those two exceptions? If a Paladin wears a charm bracelet, for whatever reason, he's now no longer able to use his shield?​

Different people read things in a different way.​

So, KD votes No on this proposal.​

I've presented my argument.​

The rules call won't even affect my PC as Din's being retired before I'll have a chance to change out my equipment. It will affect Ysane and any other similar PCs in the future.​

If any other judges have questions for me on the proposal, I'm happy to answer them.​

At the moment an Ardent or Paladin is a better infiltrator than a Rogue or Assassin (all four are charisma primary or secondary) with one level 6 item. That strikes me as wrong somehow.​

 

[KarinsDad]

At the moment an Ardent or Paladin is a better infiltrator than a Rogue or Assassin (all four are charisma primary or secondary) with one level 6 item. That strikes me as wrong somehow.​

This is hyperbole.

Ardents and Paladins would typically have lower AC if using Imposter's Armor than a Rogue or Assassin. They would probably be limited to a light blade. Carrying around the two handed Fullblade is probably out of the question for an infiltration, so they would need multiple magical weapons (one for infiltration, one for normal combat). Paladins do not start out with the Bluff, Perception, Streetwise, or Thievery skills, making their infiltrations difficult. They do get Diplomacy and Insight, but their Wisdom scores tend to be low. Ardents are slightly better due to a better skill set, but so what? There is nothing inherently wrong with an Ardent being a good infiltrator.

If someone wants to create an infiltrator, the current rules for a Changling Rogue or Assassin are better without Imposter's Armor than any Changling Paladin or Ardent with Imposter's Armor. The skills are harder to come by than the armor.

One final thing. ANY Changeling PC can be a decent physical infiltrator with +1 Chainmail Imposters Armor. One does not need to be trained in Chainmail. The PC is infiltrating. What does it matter if he is -2 to hit and -2 to Reflex for wearing Chainmail while not trained in it? Is he expecting to get into combat?

A Rogue or an Assassin can even get rid of the penalties by having Str 13, Con 13, and using a single feat.

Sorry, but there is no glaring hole here and no special reason to make a rules exception for this.

If a Changeling PC wants to go this route, go pick up Imposters Chainmail and just go do it. Or better yet, create your PC so that you don't have the penalties.