Does This Work?

[Slipperychicken]

Greetings Playgrounders! I, a humble noob to D&D, doth so require your mastery of RAW:

This cloak, if I read it right, gives wearers immunity to nonmagical weapons and makes all magic weapon damage reflex/half damage.

Spoiler

Show

Starmantle Cloak (BOED 116): This draping black cloak turns into a
sparkling mantle of tiny, cascading stars when worn. The cloak
sheds light as a torch, renders the wearer impervious to nonmagical
weapon attacks, and transforms any nonmagical
weapon or missile that strikes the wearer into harmless light,
destroying it. Contact with the starmantle does not destroy
magic weapons or missiles, but the starmantle’s wearer is entitled
to a DC 15 Reflex save each time he is struck by such a weapon;
success indicates that the wearer takes only half damage from
the attack.
Moderate abjuration; CL 11th; Craft Wondrous Item, starmantle;
Price 132,000 gp; Weight 1 lb.

I plan to abuse this item with evasion so that I never take damage from weapons again, and this appears (to my perception) perfectly RAW legal.

But one two things bug me about it:

First: does "nonmagical/magical weapons" in this case include natural weapons/attacks? And if so, does it include unarmed strikes as well?

Further: It "turns any nonmagical weapon or missile that strikes the wearer into harmless light, destroying it". So, if a creature were to strike a wearer with claws or a bite attack, what would happen? Would it lose its claws? its mouth?
What about unarmed strikes? Would swordsages/monks lose their fists and feet trying to hit this thing?

[Galileo]

I'd say it works like sundering and disarming: you can't use it against an unarmed strike. They wouldn't hit you, but their arm wouldn't be destroyed.

[Morbis Meh]

Well all your DM would have to do to null this cloak is have a high level wizard cast Mordenkainen's Disjunction to dispel the cloak's magic, but other than that it seems like a legit war to munchkinize your char.

[Gamer Girl]

Two things to point out:

First, no protection against natural weapons, so don't think your rogue can just go charging into combat all willy-nilly with it. Eventually, your rogue is going to end up having to solo a were-tiger or something because of that.

A bite is a 'Natural Weapon', not a 'Weapon'.

Second, CustServ has previously told players that Evasion does NOT work the Starmantle cloak. Specifically, Evasion work against ATTACKS that allow for a Reflex save for half damage. In the case of the Starmantle cloak, it's not the attack that's allowing for the save, but the item.

[arguskos]

1. Yes, the Starmantle Cloak really is that good.

2. Using it with Evasion is debatable, IMO. The argument goes that Evasion only works if the attack form normally gives a save, whereas here you have a second party forcing the save, not the attack form itself. I'm not saying your reading is wrong, just that your DM has a valid line of argument if he chooses to take it. Be warned.

3. Natural weapons are weapons, notably. See how they are "natural weapons". Depends on your DM though if the cloak affects them, the intent is pretty clear that it means manufactured weapons, but YMMV.

[Gamer Girl]

It always bugs me that people read things like 'transforms any nonmagical
weapon or missile that strikes the wearer into harmless light,
destroying it.' and just go off the deep end.

Why can't people see that the cloak was intended to just effect nonmagical
weapon or missile, like swords and arrows?

Why do people feel the need to make stuff all powerful?

Why would a person think: The cloak must effect natural attacks like claws too, and as written that is a disintegration effect. So anything that touches me 'as a weapon' gets disintegrated!

And why would someone think that a single item would be so crazy over powered?

And even more so, if your gonna make that conclusion, why not make the 'transformation into light' effect the whole creature that attacked? So anything that strikes the cloak is disintegrated?

And why stop there, a word or thought can be a 'nonmagical
weapon or missile'. So if someone attacks the cloak with words..poof, they are light! So if someone thinks about attacking the cloak..poof they are light too.

What about natural disasters? Is an Earthquake an attack with a nonmagical
weapon or missile? If so would the cloak transform the whole world in to light?

I know it's written poorly, and Wizards has had no editors ever, but I just don't get why people have to be so crazy about this stuff.

[OracleofWuffing]

What about unarmed strikes? Would swordsages/monks lose their fists and feet trying to hit this thing?

Well, keep in mind that an unarmed strike can be made with any part of one's body, so they can at least keep on hitting you with their foot, their shin, their knee, their upper leg, their hips, their gut, their chest, their arms, their elbows, their hands, their fingers, their necks, their heads, their beards, their eyes, their eyebrows... And, also, since they don't receive HP damage, there may not actually be a reason for them to stop doing this.

Is an Earthquake an attack with a nonmagical weapon or missile?

In which book is an Earthquake listed as a weapon? Otherwise, the only thing I can think of is if one was wielding an earthquake as an improvised weapon, in which case, provided that the Earthquake is not enchanted, yes, it'd be a nonmagical weapon.

[arguskos]

It always bugs me that people read things like 'transforms any nonmagical
weapon or missile that strikes the wearer into harmless light,
destroying it.' and just go off the deep end.

Excuse me? Given that no one else (at the time of this writing; DAMN YOU WUFFING!! *shakes fist*) has posted, you are clearly responding to something I've said, so I'll respond back. 'sonly polite.

Why would a person think: The cloak must effect natural attacks like claws too, and as written that is a disintegration effect. So anything that touches me 'as a weapon' gets disintegrated!

No one has said that, beyond you, just now, as a sarcastic and overwrought comment. Someone has said that it does what the item says it does, which is "destroys" weaponry. That's not hard to believe or accept, right? Seeing as how that's what the text says.

I will give my reasoning about natural weapons though, and why the debate exists that such could be affected, though they probably weren't meant to. See, D&D classifies natural weapons as WEAPONS, thus the name. Because of this, and the poor, poor wording on the Starmantle Cloak, it could be argued (and RAW is unclear as to who is right) that they are affected by the cloak's effect, unless enchanted of course, in which case the whole debate is moot.

As for the "disintegration" effect, no, it's not a disintegration effect, since that actually means something specific in D&D. It's just a destroy effect, which is far less specific, and could be taken to mean a lot of thematic things, all of which involve the object no longer functioning.

And why would someone think that a single item would be so crazy over powered?

Because it's hardly the first time, or the worst offender? The Thought Bottle comes to mind. So do Drakehelms.

And even more so, if your gonna make that conclusion, why not make the 'transformation into light' effect the whole creature that attacked? So anything that strikes the cloak is disintegrated?

Because, by any reading, a creature=/=a weapon. A creature is a creature. A weapon is a weapon. D&D is clear about this sort of thing. Now, if a giant was to wield, say, a gnome, as a club, then the gnome is both weapon and creature, causing all sorts of sticky wickets. D&D isn't equipped to handle such corner cases, so debate and decision is required, which is where we come in.

And why stop there, a word or thought can be a 'nonmagical
weapon or missile'. So if someone attacks the cloak with words..poof, they are light! So if someone thinks about attacking the cloak..poof they are light too.

Again, no, they can't be. D&D is clear that a weapon is an object used to cause hit point damage. A fireball is not a weapon, since it's not an object. This is clear in the rules.

What about natural disasters? Is an Earthquake an attack with a nonmagical
weapon or missile? If so would the cloak transform the whole world in to light?

See above.

I know it's written poorly, and Wizards has had no editors ever, but I just don't get why people have to be so crazy about this stuff.

You and me both.

[OracleofWuffing]

Excuse me? Given that no one else (at the time of this writing; DAMN YOU WUFFING!! *shakes fist*) has posted, you are clearly responding to something I've said, so I'll respond back.

Now, if a giant was to wield, say, a gnome, as a club, then the gnome is both weapon and creature, causing all sorts of sticky wickets. D&D isn't equipped to handle such corner cases, so debate and decision is required, which is where we come in.

Now, you see, I have the hamster spinning its wheels. Let's say we have two giants wielding gnomes, and both gnomes are wearing this cloak. Now, if we make a disarm attempt...

[Ilmryn]

Well, keep in mind that an unarmed strike can be made with any part of one's body, so they can at least keep on hitting you with their foot, their shin, their knee, their upper leg, their hips, their gut, their chest, their arms, their elbows, their hands, their fingers, their necks, their heads, their beards, their eyes, their eyebrows... And, also, since they don't receive HP damage, there may not actually be a reason for them to stop doing this.

lol

I can see this would be useful when fighting the Black Knight...

[arguskos]

Just you wait. Soon, yes soon, my vengeance will be unleashed, and you all will suffer my wrath.

Or not. I'm playin' this one by ear.

Now, you see, I have the hamster spinning its wheels. Let's say we have two giants wielding gnomes, and both gnomes are wearing this cloak. Now, if we make a disarm attempt...

Well, it depends. The cloak arguably doesn't protect against a disarm, since that's not an actual "attack", though attack is kinda fuzzily defined in D&D. I'd probably say "*SMACK*".

[Slipperychicken]

Thanks for the quick feedback! Very helpful.

Spoiler

Show

It always bugs me that people read things like 'transforms any nonmagical
weapon or missile that strikes the wearer into harmless light,
destroying it.' and just go off the deep end.

Why can't people see that the cloak was intended to just effect nonmagical
weapon or missile, like swords and arrows?

Why do people feel the need to make stuff all powerful?

Why would a person think: The cloak must effect natural attacks like claws too, and as written that is a disintegration effect. So anything that touches me 'as a weapon' gets disintegrated!

And why would someone think that a single item would be so crazy over powered?

And even more so, if your gonna make that conclusion, why not make the 'transformation into light' effect the whole creature that attacked? So anything that strikes the cloak is disintegrated?

And why stop there, a word or thought can be a 'nonmagical
weapon or missile'. So if someone attacks the cloak with words..poof, they are light! So if someone thinks about attacking the cloak..poof they are light too.

What about natural disasters? Is an Earthquake an attack with a nonmagical
weapon or missile? If so would the cloak transform the whole world in to light?

I know it's written poorly, and Wizards has had no editors ever, but I just don't get why people have to be so crazy about this stuff

.

Very good points in my opinion (was just thinking about one or two of those myself), and somewhat insightful to the nature of munchkinry and rules abuse in general.

I'll try to respond as best I can:

To be honest, the intent of this cloak, and most other things, is pretty obvious. It's like election finance law: sure, the government didn't *want* candidates to abuse PACs for unlimited attack ads, but since when has that stopped anyone?

The creation of all-powerful things makes me feel smart and giddy, and OP/munchinkry is just the logical/pissing-contest/egotist extension of character-creation: "I want to make a character" [one pulped monk later] -> "I want my character to overcome in-game obstacles" [Crusader's party role invalidated by caster] -> "I don't want my character being invalidated by casters" [other ToB barely keeps up] -> "I want to outshine the wizard" [only works when Wiz lets you] -> "I want to throw the moon at people" [warhulking hurler].

On the natural-weapon point: I couldn't find anything to say that natural weapons were or were not counted weapons [hence the post].

For the one-really-overpowered-item thing: I stared in disbelief at the description at first, and knew pretty well WotC had not intended declawed bears and gnome-fights when they wrote it. It's the fact that RAW trumps RAI right up until the DM says no.

Well, keep in mind that an unarmed strike can be made with any part of one's body, so they can at least keep on hitting you with their foot, their shin, their knee, their upper leg, their hips, their gut, their chest, their arms, their elbows, their hands, their fingers, their necks, their heads, their beards, their eyes, their eyebrows... And, also, since they don't receive HP damage, there may not actually be a reason for them to stop doing this.

I love this site...

Now, you see, I have the hamster spinning its wheels. Let's say we have two giants wielding gnomes, and both gnomes are wearing this cloak. Now, if we make a disarm attempt...

the sunder rules say that you "strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding", and the Cloak refers to weapons "that strike(s) the wearer". So if the gnomes count as nonmagical weapons, you can attempt to sunder one with the other, and have a gnome turned into harmless light. RAW FTW.

[Elric VIII]

the sunder rules say that you "strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding", and the Cloak refers to weapons "that strike(s) the wearer". So if the gnomes count as nonmagical weapons, you can attempt to sunder one with the other, and have a gnome turned into harmless light. RAW FTW.

Is a Gnome Wizard considered a magical weapon?


As for the cloak itself, is there any mechanic that describes how it destroys said magical weapon? This may be a basis for argument.

Also, I see that its aura is Abjuration. I don't seem to recall insta-death effects to be very abjuration-related.

[Funkyodor]

Well, at the best, out of 20 saves there will be a one. Automatic fail, damage taken, and a chance to damage an item worn. If I was the DM, the first item to be damaged would be the blasted starmantle cloak. And if you don't have a shield, then it can be. Number 5 on the list is Magical Cloak. Expect items to make saves, and slowly over time be destroied. I guess your pocketbook can replace your HP in this case.

[Slipperychicken]

Well, at the best, out of 20 saves there will be a one. Automatic fail, damage taken, and a chance to damage an item worn. If I was the DM, the first item to be damaged would be the blasted starmantle cloak. And if you don't have a shield, then it can be. Number 5 on the list is Magical Cloak. Expect items to make saves, and slowly over time be destroied. I guess your pocketbook can replace your HP in this case.

I know it isn't perfect, but it essentially grants a 'lol no' to nonmagic weapons, as well as what amounts to a 95% no-damage chance for magic weapons, and even the ~1/20 that gets through is only doing half damage (from evasion). Which is.. about as good as your going to get from a single item and a feat. It'll be just like being afraid of criticals, except the "critical" in this case is half damage from a single attack.

It's nice to know that I'll have to crit-fail a will save before taking damage from weapons. And there are all sorts of ways to get re-rolls on saves. Every reroll I get turns 1/20 into 1/40 into 1/60, and if I'm eating that many magic arrows, I'm doing it wrong.

But I just read the sunder/disarm rules, and although it's pathetically easy to sunder/steal cloaks off of people, how many guys are, barring intimate knowledge of this item, going to watch their souped-up magic attacks (ones which hit, no less) not even do the minimum 1 damage and say "I'll eat an AoO trying to rip his clothes off!" rather than "holy ****, what's this guy's DR?".