|
Author
|
Comment
|
msherman
Crimson Coil Cultist
(2/25/04 10:00 am)
Reply
|
Purple Robes vs. Armor in 3.5
I just noticed an interesting consequence of the 3.5 rules in the Outer Fane.
In 3.0, robes were an independent magic item slot. In 3.5, robes and armor now occupy the same slot. So this means that Hedrack needs to remove his +1 Full Plate in order to put on his Purple Robes when he goes to the Greater Temple or Black Cyst. That's a nasty little restriction, and provides a good opportunity for alert PCs to ambush him.
According to the slot rules (DMG 214), the first one donned continues to work. So putting on purple robes over mundane armor is fine, but if you put on purple robes over magic armor, the armor continues to work but the purple robes do not.
It would probably be a good idea to add a note about this to Hedrack's entry in the 3.5 update doc, including his modified AC and speed when not wearing his full plate.
|
 Infiniti2000
Brother of Venom
(2/25/04 11:00 am)
Reply
ezSupporter
|
Re: Purple Robes vs. Armor in 3.5
Although it calls them Robes, I've always viewed them as Cloaks. Thanks for the pointer, though, as I will now make sure I specifically make them Cloaks, which I believe is a more appropriate translation into 3.5 as it follows Monte's intent.
|
Cordo Crowfoot
Deathmantle Cultist
(2/25/04 4:03 pm)
Reply
|
Re: Purple Robes vs. Armor in 3.5
I lean towards I2K's approach... They should be reclassified as cloaks to match the original intent.
Shouldn't this be noted in the conversion?
|
Narben
Ebon Hand Cultist
(2/25/04 10:09 pm)
Reply
ezSupporter
|
Re: Purple Robes vs. Armor in 3.5
Since no one actually has to pay creation costs for them couldn't you just fudge it and say that they're robes with a "slotless" magical effect thus stacking with whatever is underneath.
|
Infiniti2000
Brother of Venom
(2/26/04 5:39 am)
Reply
ezSupporter
|
Re: Purple Robes vs. Armor in 3.5
Not a good idea for the sake of consistency in the game. If you do it for this item, the PC's may want to do it for others, it would be a poor excuse to disallow it. Making them cloaks is easy enough.
|
HWRNMNBSOL
Ebon Hand Cultist
(2/26/04 7:04 am)
Reply
|
Re: Purple Robes vs. Armor in 3.5
I have a concern with the cloak idea. Every once in a while the First must surely go to the Greater Temple. He would then have to suit up with a Purple Robe in the Vestry. The problem is, the First (and other important NPC clerics such as Naquent) has a magical cloak already. So, again, we have an item slot conflict.
I'm inclined to rename the Purple Robes something entirely different and slotless (Purple Mantles?) I'm not worried about setting a bad precedent with the players and item slots because the secret of creating these items has been lost. Sorry, players; Tharizdun has more plusses!
|
Infiniti2000
Brother of Venom
(2/26/04 10:51 am)
Reply
ezSupporter
|
Re: Purple Robes vs. Armor in 3.5
A mantle falls into the same slot as cloak. The thing about a cloak though is that it is quite easy to remove and don a different one. It is not so easy to remove your plate mail. I see nothing wrong with making them take off a cloak of protection for a purple cloak of Tharizdun cold protection.
|
fjeTheNarrator
Ebon Hand Cultist
(2/26/04 1:15 pm)
Reply
|
Re: Purple Robes vs. Armor in 3.5
Not that it's core, but in ToEE, the new video game, you can toss a robe on over your armor and put a cloak on over the robe. IE, they made a new slot for it.
None of those robes were magic, granted, but I think the intent of the robe is that it doesn't interfere with anything else. They is speshul.
--fje
|
Okay -- Your Turn
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies