Forums: Rules Discussion: Non-Armor and Armor Property Runes (2024)

"Explorer’s Clothing: Adventurers who don’t wear armor travel in durable clothing. Though it’s not armor and uses your unarmored defense proficiency, it still has a Dex Cap and can grant an item bonus to AC if etched with potency runes (as described on page 226 of GM Core)."

Player Core page 272.

"Explorer’s clothing can have armor runes etched on it even though it’s not armor, but because it’s not in the light, medium, or heavy armor category, it can’t have runes requiring any of those categories."

GM Core page 224.

Not from the remastered rules, and I'm not even certain where it was pulled from for the Legacy version, but AoN does have a guideline in the Armor Specialization section:

Armor Specialization Effects wrote:

Source

Certain class features can grant you additional benefits with certain armors. This is called an armor specialization effect. The exact effect depends on which armor group your armor belongs to, as listed below. Only medium and heavy armors have armor specialization effects.

Cloth: Nethys Note: there is no medium or heavy cloth armor, so there is no armor specialization effect for the cloth armor group.

Clothing isn't armor, but if it has a Dex cap it can accept fundamental and property runes.

Taja the Barbarian wrote:

Not from the remastered rules, and I'm not even certain where it was pulled from for the Legacy version, but AoN does have a guideline in the Armor Specialization section:

Armor Specialization Effects wrote:

Source

Core Rulebook pg. 275 (4.0)Certain class features can grant you additional benefits with certain armors. This is called an armor specialization effect. The exact effect depends on which armor group your armor belongs to, as listed below. Only medium and heavy armors have armor specialization effects.

Cloth: Nethys Note: there is no medium or heavy cloth armor, so there is no armor specialization effect for the cloth armor group.

Clothing isn't armor, but if it has a Dex cap it can accept fundamental and property runes.

Did some digging as you got my curious if it was absent in the Remaster.

This is what I was able to find.

GM Core 224: Explorer’s clothing can have armor runes etched on it even though it’s not armor, but because it’s not in the light, medium, or heavy armor category, it can’t have runes requiring any of those categories.

GM Core 230, Sidebar: Explorer’s clothing can be etched with runes just like armor can, so it can provide item bonuses to AC or saves.

Player Core ONLY mentions fundamental runes though, so new players might well believe that property runes aren't an option (and may not think to ask the GM to check the GM Core for guidance).

Ravingdork wrote:

Taja the Barbarian wrote:

Not from the remastered rules, and I'm not even certain where it was pulled from for the Legacy version, but AoN does have a guideline in the Armor Specialization section:

Armor Specialization Effects wrote:

Source

Core Rulebook pg. 275 (4.0)Certain class features can grant you additional benefits with certain armors. This is called an armor specialization effect. The exact effect depends on which armor group your armor belongs to, as listed below. Only medium and heavy armors have armor specialization effects.

Cloth: Nethys Note: there is no medium or heavy cloth armor, so there is no armor specialization effect for the cloth armor group.

Clothing isn't armor, but if it has a Dex cap it can accept fundamental and property runes.

Did some digging as you got my curious if it was absent in the Remaster.

This is what I was able to find.

GM Core 224: Explorer’s clothing can have armor runes etched on it even though it’s not armor, but because it’s not in the light, medium, or heavy armor category, it can’t have runes requiring any of those categories.

GM Core 230, Sidebar: Explorer’s clothing can be etched with runes just like armor can, so it can provide item bonuses to AC or saves.

Player Core ONLY mentions fundamental runes though, so new players might well believe that property runes aren't an option (and may not think to ask the GM to check the GM Core for guidance).

you can argue that it dont need to mention property runes since Armor Potency rune itself say it allow you to apply one Property rune.

since specific trumps general should that not be enuf?

Armor Potency wrote:

The armor can be etched with one property rune.

but i agree i rather have more text that reiterates or points to other revelant rules then leave some things in the gray.

Nomadical wrote:

And because Clothing is not armor, it can't accept talismans or spellhearts, as I understand it.

A big drawback in PF2, since spellhearts were introduced. IME, most characters that lack light armor proficiency will only use explorer's clothing (or, after Treasure Vault, scroll robes) until they can find/afford bands of force; or spend a feat on Armor Proficiency to be able to use both runes and spellhearts.

Before spellhearts, explorer's clothing was considered more valuable because runes were so much better than talismans.

Dragonchess Player wrote:

Nomadical wrote:

And because Clothing is not armor, it can't accept talismans or spellhearts, as I understand it.

A big drawback in PF2, since spellhearts were introduced. IME, most characters that lack light armor proficiency will only use explorer's clothing (or, after Treasure Vault, scroll robes) until they can find/afford bands of force; or spend a feat on Armor Proficiency to be able to use both runes and spellhearts.

Or everyone will completely ignore this restriction from the start (if they even knew about it). I haven't heard of anyone who complied with it. I definitely never had.

P.S. Because that's just absurd: you MUST be a caster to cast any spells from spellhearts [because it's Cast a Spell; now it's easier when all dedications allow this though] And then you being a cloth caster can't even affix it to your 'armor'? Unacceptable.

Errenor wrote:

Dragonchess Player wrote:

Nomadical wrote:

And because Clothing is not armor, it can't accept talismans or spellhearts, as I understand it.

A big drawback in PF2, since spellhearts were introduced. IME, most characters that lack light armor proficiency will only use explorer's clothing (or, after Treasure Vault, scroll robes) until they can find/afford bands of force; or spend a feat on Armor Proficiency to be able to use both runes and spellhearts.

Or everyone will completely ignore this restriction from the start (if they even knew about it). I haven't heard of anyone who complied with it. I definitely never had.

P.S. Because that's just absurd: you MUST be a caster to cast any spells from spellhearts [because it's Cast a Spell; now it's easier when all dedications allow this though] And then you being a cloth caster can't even affix it to your 'armor'? Unacceptable.

Or just use Bands of Force instead of clothing for protection:

Force, Invested, Magical

Decorated with clear gemstones, these thick metal bands spread an inflexible layer of force over your body. The force grants you a +1 item bonus to AC and saving throws, and a maximum Dexterity modifier of +5 as armor. You can affix talismans to the bands as though they were light armor.

Activate—Return Force [reaction] (force, manipulate); Trigger A creature critically misses you with a melee Strike.; Effect You Shove the creature using the bands' Athletics modifier of +14.

This is the way it has been since PF2 launched: If you don't want to or can't use physical armor, you can either use 'Armored Clothing' which sacrifices the use of Talismans - or - 'Bracers/Bands' which sacrifice Property runes.

Taja the Barbarian wrote:

Errenor wrote:

Or everyone will completely ignore this restriction from the start (if they even knew about it). I haven't heard of anyone who complied with it. I definitely never had.

P.S. Because that's just absurd: you MUST be a caster to cast any spells from spellhearts [because it's Cast a Spell; now it's easier when all dedications allow this though] And then you being a cloth caster can't even affix it to your 'armor'? Unacceptable.

Or just use Bands of Force instead of clothing for protection: Bands of Force <Item 8+>

Yeah... And wait for about level 8. No, thanks. Also have never seen this item used by anyone. It's just terribly inconvenient. Unless maybe if you start at levels 8-10. At 11th you throw them away and use +2 potency normally.

Errenor wrote:

Dragonchess Player wrote:

Nomadical wrote:

And because Clothing is not armor, it can't accept talismans or spellhearts, as I understand it.

A big drawback in PF2, since spellhearts were introduced. IME, most characters that lack light armor proficiency will only use explorer's clothing (or, after Treasure Vault, scroll robes) until they can find/afford bands of force; or spend a feat on Armor Proficiency to be able to use both runes and spellhearts.

Or everyone will completely ignore this restriction from the start (if they even knew about it). I haven't heard of anyone who complied with it. I definitely never had.

P.S. Because that's just absurd: you MUST be a caster to cast any spells from spellhearts [because it's Cast a Spell; now it's easier when all dedications allow this though] And then you being a cloth caster can't even affix it to your 'armor'? Unacceptable.

It's a bit more nuanced than you make it.

Bards, druids, and oracles, for example, have always had proficiency in light armor (and medium for druids) in PF2. Also, taking the Armor Proficiency feat early (1st level human using General Training or as the 3rd level general feat for other ancestries) and then retraining it for something else later was pretty common (probably more common than the "armored wizard" route taking an archetype); if anything, the Remastered version of Armor Proficiency makes it an easier choice since the proficiency scales to Expert at 13th level (so retraining is less necessary).

Non-casters will find spellhearts useful in several cases too, even if they can't cast the spells: several spellhearts grant constant resistance when attached to armor and a beastmaster's sigil attached to a weapon grants a +1 bonus on Athletics checks to trip. They may be a little "overpriced" for non-casters compared to worn items that grant innate spells, but not horribly so (IMO) if you stick to the lower versions (3rd- to 5th-level items, mostly).

Dragonchess Player wrote:

Errenor wrote:

Dragonchess Player wrote:

Nomadical wrote:

And because Clothing is not armor, it can't accept talismans or spellhearts, as I understand it.

A big drawback in PF2, since spellhearts were introduced. IME, most characters that lack light armor proficiency will only use explorer's clothing (or, after Treasure Vault, scroll robes) until they can find/afford bands of force; or spend a feat on Armor Proficiency to be able to use both runes and spellhearts.

Or everyone will completely ignore this restriction from the start (if they even knew about it). I haven't heard of anyone who complied with it. I definitely never had.

P.S. Because that's just absurd: you MUST be a caster to cast any spells from spellhearts [because it's Cast a Spell; now it's easier when all dedications allow this though] And then you being a cloth caster can't even affix it to your 'armor'? Unacceptable.

It's a bit more nuanced than you make it.

Bards, druids, and oracles, for example, have always had proficiency in light armor (and medium for druids) in PF2. Also, taking the Armor Proficiency feat early (1st level human using General Training or as the 3rd level general feat for other ancestries) and then retraining it for something else later was pretty common (probably more common than the "armored wizard" route taking an archetype); if anything, the Remastered version of Armor Proficiency makes it an easier choice since the proficiency scales to Expert at 13th level (so retraining is less necessary).

Non-casters will find spellhearts useful in several cases too, even if they can't cast the spells: several spellhearts grant constant resistance when attached to armor and a beastmaster's sigil attached to a weapon grants a +1 bonus on Athletics checks to trip. They may be a little "overpriced" for non-casters compared to worn items that grant innate spells, but not horribly so (IMO) if you stick to the lower versions (3rd- to 5th-level items, mostly).

I mean, the Spellheart I see mentioned the most in discussions by Martials is the Phantasmal Doorknob. Free Dazzled on Crit (or Blinded, for the upgraded version) with no save is well worth the asking price.

Dragonchess Player wrote:

Errenor wrote:

Or everyone will completely ignore this restriction from the start (if they even knew about it). I haven't heard of anyone who complied with it. I definitely never had.

P.S. Because that's just absurd: you MUST be a caster to cast any spells from spellhearts [because it's Cast a Spell; now it's easier when all dedications allow this though] And then you being a cloth caster can't even affix it to your 'armor'? Unacceptable.

It's a bit more nuanced than you make it.

Bards, druids, and oracles, for example, have always had proficiency in light armor (and medium for druids) in PF2. Also, taking the Armor Proficiency ...

Non-casters will find spellhearts useful in several cases too, even if they can't cast the spells...

It's all is kind of true, but I'm not talking about light armor casters or martials. I'm saying that cloth casters must be able to take full advantage of spellhearts without jumping through any hoops. No, light armor casters don't need any additional advantages over cloth casters.

Basically either Explorer's clothing must mention talismans also, or talismans must have a section about explorer's clothing as runes have. Or maybe at least spellhearts only (though trying to increase usefullness of talismans and forbidding armor talismans for cloth casters really clash). Now I see it as an oversight and not an actual rule.