Topic: Treasure Companion question (regarding improving Robes AT)

[Doridian]

I've recently grabbed a near mint copy of Treasure Companion and the more I read it the more I like it. Above all I like the approach to give you a sound foundation to devise your own magical items, based on Spell Law (improving what was in the original Spell Law rules). Among other things I like the idea of giving an item a level based on the highest spell cast to make (and enchant) the item itself. It helps to devise the value, the difficulty, the level of the Alchemist itself, the bonuses, etc.. And it helps to gauge the overall balance of things.

In the campaign I'm slowly bringing ahead, it turns out it would be nice for the party magician to improve her chances to survive in melee (to be avoided, for sure, if possible at all). So I've looked at what should be done to get "simple" magic robes with AT3 (instead of the AT2 she is dressed with).

I would say that you need an Alchemist (say an Essence one) that casts "Work Cloth", to work with the robes, and "Armor II" to use it to imbue the robes with the "special effect" of minor increased AT (section 9.8.1of the rules). If it's the case, the Armor II spell in the Armor Enchantments list is a 9th level spell; it's the highest level spell (of the two); the level of the item would be 9. A Journeyman would be high enough.

Yet, I feel I'm missing something, as Armor II asks for a +5 non-magical material to begin with. Should the robes be enchanted via Armor I first, then worked using Work Magic Cloth (level 17 for Essence Alchemists)? If it were the case the level of the item would nearly double. But, then, the robes to be enchanted bu Armor II would not be "non-magical" to begin with...

Any suggestions?
Thank you in advance.
 

[rdanhenry]

+5 non-magical material means it has an inherent bonus from the material, not a spell (it would then no longer be non-magical). You will need a cloth with a +5 inherent bonus. Perhaps this would be woven from the silk of giant spiders. One of the great flaws of the Treasure Companion system is that it severely limits magical bonuses to only +5 over what you can get without magic. This is pretty bleak if you aren't in a late middle age to renaissance technology setting but instead in a, say, classical world setting.

I think you might want to make the following a workable solution if you do not want to introduce +5 cloth into your setting. Start with the hide of an animal with AT 3. Use Work Organic (not Work Leather, as once it has been turned into leather, it would have a leather-type AT) and allow Armor I to have the special effect of keeping its normally-not-allowed-as-an-actual-armor AT of 3 instead of the +5 bonus. After all, if Armor II can increase an AT, then Armor I can reasonably keep it stable.

[Doridian]

You are right. I've been somehow misled by all of the stuff regarding gems and, by converse, if I'm not wrong, the lack of examples of special materials. I mean there is a great deal of gems and stones (with questionable direct usefulness in game play) and I've not been able to find something about "fantasy" materials to work with,  like the one you are suggesting (Giant Spider silk, but even just Spider silk could give a +5, maybe, and Giant Spider silk could give a +10; in the treasure descriptions there are Robes that protect as AT4 and have a +10 DB; so either a different material should be imagined or, simply, robes that protect as AT3 are not usually created).
Thank you for the enlightenment! 

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

Low (+5) non-magical bonuses may also be the result of high quality material or high-level crafting, so you may also merely state that, in order to be enchanted with Armour II, the initial item must be of high quality (either a masterwork or made from high quality materials), not just your average item that can be found everywhere.

[Doridian]

For sure I need to write down some special materials for clothes. I'll come up with some story about them.
Thank you.

[nwatters]

I would like to point out that according to "And a 10' Pole" quilted/padded armor is already AT 3, as AT 3 is considered no armor; your spell caster can already have AT 3 without making a magical item. 

[Peter R]

I would like to point out that according to "And a 10' Pole" quilted/padded armor is already AT 3, as AT 3 is considered no armor; your spell caster can already have AT 3 without making a magical item.

Is that the same 1-10 Armour types or is that an AT3 on the old 1-20 scale.

[nwatters]

That would be on the "old" AT 1-20 scale. I forgot they changed it. I have no idea what AT 3 is in the new system; I figured because the discussion was about the older treasure book, we were talking about the 1-20 AT.   

[jdale]

In RMSS/RMFRP and RM2/RMC, +1 AT is potentially problematic. Changing AT 1 to AT 2 is disadvantageous, and AT 2 to AT 3 is big. Similar effects occur all over the tables. Normally I would advise sticking to DB increases. That said, the specific case of AT 3 robes does not seem too bad if you consider it as a change from AT 1 (no armor).

RMU doesn't have those discontinuities so there may be some oddities for particular attack types but they are not huge and in general +1 AT will be reasonably but not overwhelmingly helpful.

[Majyk]

As a GM, I always made dreaded AT2 Robes a status symbol for spellcasters as well as a kind of power focus.
Otherwise, there was absolutely no reason anyone would wear them into combat when regular clothing “protected” better(whatever the perceived raison d’être was back in the day).

RM2 was very PP light for spellusers so I adopted a slight bump for those wanting to dress in the garb of “their people” knowing AT2 was the worst in the game(besides AT5-6) making them act as a +2 Spell Adder/x2 PP Multiplier - chosen at 2nd Level.

Mages never got rid of them that way and continued to be easy targets to single out for the GM, heehee.

[Doridian]

As a GM, I always made dreaded AT2 Robes a status symbol for spellcasters as well as a kind of power focus. [...]

I'm playing with my young daughter and her friends, true novice and glad to accept my directives. So, magic users wear robes (or, more properly, they do not wear AT1) as, say, in old first edition basic D&D Clerics couldn't use edged weapons...