This all started with an idea that a party discovers a suit of magic adamantine plate armor, but the monk and barbarian agree to split it up into its parts (breastplate w/ helmet for the barb and gauntlets for the monk). Of course, the armor would not give its crit-blocking powers this way, but then it dawned on me that the gauntlets are part of the armor set.
Plate consists of shaped, interlocking metal plates to cover the entire body. A suit of plate includes gauntlets, heavy leather boots, a visored helmet, and thick layers of padding underneath the armor. Buckles and straps distribute the weight over the body.
From the Magic Item section from the DMG:
Using a magic item’s properties might mean wearing or wielding it. A magic item meant to be worn must be donned in the intended fashion: boots go on the feet, gloves on the hands, hats and helmets on the head, and rings on the finger. Magic armor must be donned, a shield strapped to the arm, a cloak fastened about the shoulders. A weapon must be held in hand.
Paired Items
Items that come in pairs—such as boots, bracers, gauntlets, and gloves—impart their benefits only if both items of the pair are worn. For example, a character wearing a boot of striding and springing on one foot and a boot of elvenkind on the other foot gains no benefit from either item.
Does this mean that RAW a suit of most magic medium and heavy armors can't be used with things like gauntlets of ogre power or boots of striding and springing?
The RAW imply you need to wear a suit of armor in its entirety in order to gain the AC benefit, but there's no explicit rule that says it's all or you get nothing. Very few DMs will not allow you to replace the, let's say non-critical, pieces with something else in order to benefit from boots or gauntlets or a helmet with magical properties. The intent of the game is to allow everyone a set amount of slots for special equipment, I wouldn't cut down on that on account of a largely aesthetical argument.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You're taking it rather to an extreme. RAI is to not allow you to cheat by wearing one of one kind of boot and one of another. Using a magic plate armor with a magic set of gauntlets doesn't break the game. RAW you're probably right. If a suit of plate includes a visored helm, then you can't really use it at the same time as the Helm of Comprehend Languages. But whatever.
I certainly think you can substitute any helm or gauntlets you want for the stock helm and gauntlets from a suit of mundane plate armor, and not diminish the plate armor's AC.
Lately I've been leaning away from "the fluff is just there to spruce up the mechanics" and towards "the fluff IS mechanics, and furthermore it's the more important aspect when the two come into conflict." And with that philosophy, I'd definitely restrict plate in this way.
However, I haven't really had a chance to USE this philosophy because I'm not DMing right now, so idk if it's any good.
I do think it's worth mentioning that full plate is an absolute no-brainer for a ton of characters, and the only reason they don't use it is that they can't afford it yet. There's an argument to be made that maybe other heavy armor types are meant to be more appealing through their ability to work with magic items. I'm not sure I'd agree with that argument but, idk, maybe.
I would argue based on "rule of cool" / fun that you should not apply rules this strictly. If players find a magic plate armor and a magic helm, it is more fun that they get to use both of them. It is not an absurd attempt at exploitation to load up on every bonus like using one of one kind of boot and one of another.
This all started with an idea that a party discovers a suit of magic adamantine plate armor, but the monk and barbarian agree to split it up into its parts (breastplate w/ helmet for the barb and gauntlets for the monk).
I know it's not subject in question (I can only second the previous answers), but if we're going strictly by RAW, a Barbarian should not be able to rage in Heavy Armor and a Monk should not be able to use martial arts wearing heavy armor - both classes are not even proficient with this kind if equipment.
The only reason I am pointing it out is because you're asking about RAW ^^' But if it works for your game, go for it.
Lately I've been leaning away from "the fluff is just there to spruce up the mechanics" and towards "the fluff IS mechanics, and furthermore it's the more important aspect when the two come into conflict." And with that philosophy, I'd definitely restrict plate in this way.
However, I haven't really had a chance to USE this philosophy because I'm not DMing right now, so idk if it's any good.
I do think it's worth mentioning that full plate is an absolute no-brainer for a ton of characters, and the only reason they don't use it is that they can't afford it yet. There's an argument to be made that maybe other heavy armor types are meant to be more appealing through their ability to work with magic items. I'm not sure I'd agree with that argument but, idk, maybe.
I wouldn't allow it from a DM point of a view. When magic items are enchanted, they are enchanted as the entire "set"(all pieces of full plate for the bonus to full plate, all pieces of half plate for the bonus to half plate). Breaking the set means the enchantment was broken. RAW, I can't think of any rule that specifically disallows this, but RAW, the enchanted item is the one that was given in its totality, not the sum of its parts.
It's an interesting idea for sure, and I could see it being adjudicated many different ways.
Alternatively, you could decide that they don't get the full AC bonus they normally would if they split up the armour, unless they replace the missing pieces with parts that would impart the same AC bonus? (So they might only get +1 to AC instead of +3.) It might seem unfair, but the defense bonus you get to AC in full armour is because it's harder for people to do damage when all your skin is covered?
If they're armour sharing to both get a magical benefit / protection, I would probably rule that the magical part of the armour can't be split in two (unless you are the magic user who crafted the armour), and that by wearing it separately, the magic is divided between them to the point of not working. Maybe there's even consequences for splitting up parts of a magical item, since the person who crafted it never wanted it to be split up? I mean, otherwise over the years, what's the point of building a set of armour if the benefits can be split up?
I mean, if your ruling as a DM is that they absolutely shouldn't split up the item, but you want to make it clear to your players that they can't just split up magical items as they like, you could describe it something like this:
"As you separate the pieces, the feeling of protective magic thrumming within the suit dissipates... the armour was made to be worn as a set, and isn't as effective like this, so even as a regular set of armour it won't protect either of you as well if you split it up. There's a discordant feeling of wrongness as the two of you get further apart, the armour suddenly becoming heavier as though the sentience in the magic refuses to be divided so. Your speed will be decreased by 5ft for every five feet apart in distance and you'll suffer a penalty of -2 per every five feet, since every five feet apart from each other you are as the armour gets heavier and interrupts physical saving throws, base speed, attacks and physical ability checks."
My understanding of the question is slightly different to others. Let's use an example to illustrate my understanding:
A PC, Boris, is already wearing magic armour. Let's say, since I don't know of any, that it's the Armour of Flying, and grants you 30ft flying speed. Boris then finds the Gauntlets of Ogre Power, which increases the wearer's strength to 19.
The question is, can Boris wear both the Armour of Flying and the Gauntlets of Ogre Power?
Personally, I'd rule that it's fine, so long as it doesn't become unbalanced. I'm not sure whether it would or not, though.
I certainly wouldn't allow another PC, say, Bob, to pick up the gauntlets from the Armour of Flying and gain flight. Or if I did, I'd add a penalty such as, Bob only gets 10ft Flying speed, and requires so much concentration to use that he's now at disadvantage at saving throws, attack rolls and damage rolls while using it or attackers get advantage until Bob's next turn. A heavy enough penalty to deter its use except in desperation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Just to clarify, by breaking the magic plate armor into its components, the barb is trying to get the breastplate medium armor and the monk an adamantine upgrade to his unarmed strikes. I've informed them both that they could do this, but neither would get crit immunity, which they accepted. The item was rolled randomly, and this party currently has no heavy armor user.
There may actually be multiple answers here - think about it from the enchanting wizard’s point of view. He could be using a ritual similar to mage armour where he would boy need to enchant the breastplate to grant the effect for the whole body and the other parts of the “ enchanted” set are actually mundane and can be switched in and out without affecting the base enchantment.
OR
The ritual could be more like magic weapon where higher level castings grant improved bonuses and the entire set needs to be present to grant the abilities and switching parts in and out would break the enchantment.
It could even be done in combination like some of the sets from earlier versions where adding parts of the original set adds enhancements to the whole beyond just the enhancements on the individual pieces.
in the OPs example I would eliminate any extra magical bonuses to all the split up pieces but the barbarian could still get the benefit of a monmagical Admantine breastplate, the monk sadly wouldn’t get the benefits as normal bracers and gauntlets don’t add anything to AC in the rules.
My understanding of the question is slightly different to others. Let's use an example to illustrate my understanding:
A PC, Boris, is already wearing magic armour. Let's say, since I don't know of any, that it's the Armour of Flying, and grants you 30ft flying speed. Boris then finds the Gauntlets of Ogre Power, which increases the wearer's strength to 19.
The question is, can Boris wear both the Armour of Flying and the Gauntlets of Ogre Power?
Yeah, that was my understanding of the question also. The other question (can they split it up the way they did, and if so, what should happen) is already in the past. OP made a ruling and moved on, which is great.
Some items would be easy to layer on top of or underneath armor (a cape), and then some would just not make any sense to wear with armor (another set of armor), and then some would be possible to wear only by replacing parts of the armor. It's that last one that is the question. For full plate, according to the description of the armor, that would logically include boots, gauntlets, and a helmet - all of which are types of magic items that a player might want to combine with magic full plate. Thus, the question. Can they?
For further context, the other types of heavy armor include different pieces. Ring mail mentions none of these; chain mail has gauntlets; splint has none of these. Only full plate has a helmet and boots. Also, scale mail (medium armor) has gauntlets.
I think most people will assume they can just swap out their magic armor's gauntlets for other magic gauntlets, and boots for boots, and helmet for helmet, just because (like me) they haven't thought about it, and if you're going to rule otherwise, you ought to do so early on, maybe even in session zero, just to set expectations.
Also: Anybody think you should be able to replace the helmet with a hat?
Also: Anybody think you should be able to replace the helmet with a hat?
I think the intent of the developers is that you should be able to use all your magic item "slots" regardless of the type of armor you're using so yes, I do think that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Just to clarify, by breaking the magic plate armor into its components, the barb is trying to get the breastplate medium armor and the monk an adamantine upgrade to his unarmed strikes. I've informed them both that they could do this, but neither would get crit immunity, which they accepted. The item was rolled randomly, and this party currently has no heavy armor user.
RAW you cannot break it up, and while I think that what you've done is perfectly fine, I would consider the breatsplate to be heavy armour in terms of stealth disadvantage.
Also: Anybody think you should be able to replace the helmet with a hat?
I think the intent of the developers is that you should be able to use all your magic item "slots" regardless of the type of armor you're using so yes, I do think that.
I think you're right. It lines up with the "simplify when possible" philosophy of so much of the game. However, there are some reasons to suspect otherwise. The fact that the armor descriptions say "it includes," rather than "it usually includes" or something similar, for one. For two, to take it to the extreme, surely you would agree that a character shouldn't be wearing three pairs of boots at the same time, even if they can attune to all of them?
Also: Anybody think you should be able to replace the helmet with a hat?
I think the intent of the developers is that you should be able to use all your magic item "slots" regardless of the type of armor you're using so yes, I do think that.
I think you're right. It lines up with the "simplify when possible" philosophy of so much of the game. However, there are some reasons to suspect otherwise. The fact that the armor descriptions say "it includes," rather than "it usually includes" or something similar, for one. For two, to take it to the extreme, surely you would agree that a character shouldn't be wearing three pairs of boots at the same time, even if they can attune to all of them?
That'd be getting three uses out of one slot for a magical item, so no - that's clearly not what's intended.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Also: Anybody think you should be able to replace the helmet with a hat?
I think the intent of the developers is that you should be able to use all your magic item "slots" regardless of the type of armor you're using so yes, I do think that.
I think you're right. It lines up with the "simplify when possible" philosophy of so much of the game. However, there are some reasons to suspect otherwise. The fact that the armor descriptions say "it includes," rather than "it usually includes" or something similar, for one. For two, to take it to the extreme, surely you would agree that a character shouldn't be wearing three pairs of boots at the same time, even if they can attune to all of them?
That'd be getting three uses out of one slot for a magical item, so no - that's clearly not what's intended.
Oh, you meant "slot" in the 3.5e sense. I thought you meant attunement slots.
The argument here, then, is that full plate occupies the armor, boots, gauntlets, and helmet slots. Other armor only occupies two, or usually just one, of those slots. I take it you understand that argument, you just don't find it very compelling?
My understanding of the question is slightly different to others. Let's use an example to illustrate my understanding:
A PC, Boris, is already wearing magic armour. Let's say, since I don't know of any, that it's the Armour of Flying, and grants you 30ft flying speed. Boris then finds the Gauntlets of Ogre Power, which increases the wearer's strength to 19.
The question is, can Boris wear both the Armour of Flying and the Gauntlets of Ogre Power?
Yeah, that was my understanding of the question also. The other question (can they split it up the way they did, and if so, what should happen) is already in the past. OP made a ruling and moved on, which is great.
Some items would be easy to layer on top of or underneath armor (a cape), and then some would just not make any sense to wear with armor (another set of armor), and then some would be possible to wear only by replacing parts of the armor. It's that last one that is the question. For full plate, according to the description of the armor, that would logically include boots, gauntlets, and a helmet - all of which are types of magic items that a player might want to combine with magic full plate. Thus, the question. Can they?
I would say yes. The bulk of the magic full plate remains. Replacing gauntlets with other magical gauntlets won't affect the AC, and I don't think it will affect the magic significantly either. On the other hand, you can't swap out the breastplate from the magical full plate for a different magical breastplate. You've lost too much of the original armor.
I'm imagining a rule like the rule for exchanging damaged bills. If you have > 50% of the bill, it's worth full value. This gives some leniency, but prevents you from dividing the item in such a way as to duplicate the value.
Also: Anybody think you should be able to replace the helmet with a hat?
No. You can swap it for a different helmet. I don't think swapping a helm for the hat will diminish the magic, but it will diminish the AC. Maybe give a -1 penalty.
Also: Anybody think you should be able to replace the helmet with a hat?
I think the intent of the developers is that you should be able to use all your magic item "slots" regardless of the type of armor you're using so yes, I do think that.
I think you're right. It lines up with the "simplify when possible" philosophy of so much of the game. However, there are some reasons to suspect otherwise. The fact that the armor descriptions say "it includes," rather than "it usually includes" or something similar, for one. For two, to take it to the extreme, surely you would agree that a character shouldn't be wearing three pairs of boots at the same time, even if they can attune to all of them?
That'd be getting three uses out of one slot for a magical item, so no - that's clearly not what's intended.
Oh, you meant "slot" in the 3.5e sense. I thought you meant attunement slots.
The argument here, then, is that full plate occupies the armor, boots, gauntlets, and helmet slots. Other armor only occupies two, or usually just one, of those slots. I take it you understand that argument, you just don't find it very compelling?
Correct, because the DMG says to use common sense: you can't wear two helmets, but you can wear a circlet under a helmet; you can't wear two sets of gauntlets, but you can probably wear gloves under a pair of gauntlets; etc. To me that indicates the rules aren't meant to prohibit the wearing of wondrous items if you're wearing armour on the same part of your body. That makes it silly - in my opinion - to tell a player their character can't wear a pair of magical boots just because they happen to be wearing full plate rather than a breastplate, while if the boots were sandals or wraps or socks for all I care it wouldn't be an issue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This all started with an idea that a party discovers a suit of magic adamantine plate armor, but the monk and barbarian agree to split it up into its parts (breastplate w/ helmet for the barb and gauntlets for the monk). Of course, the armor would not give its crit-blocking powers this way, but then it dawned on me that the gauntlets are part of the armor set.
Plate consists of shaped, interlocking metal plates to cover the entire body. A suit of plate includes gauntlets, heavy leather boots, a visored helmet, and thick layers of padding underneath the armor. Buckles and straps distribute the weight over the body.
From the Magic Item section from the DMG:
Using a magic item’s properties might mean wearing or wielding it. A magic item meant to be worn must be donned in the intended fashion: boots go on the feet, gloves on the hands, hats and helmets on the head, and rings on the finger. Magic armor must be donned, a shield strapped to the arm, a cloak fastened about the shoulders. A weapon must be held in hand.
Paired Items
Items that come in pairs—such as boots, bracers, gauntlets, and gloves—impart their benefits only if both items of the pair are worn. For example, a character wearing a boot of striding and springing on one foot and a boot of elvenkind on the other foot gains no benefit from either item.
Does this mean that RAW a suit of most magic medium and heavy armors can't be used with things like gauntlets of ogre power or boots of striding and springing?
The RAW imply you need to wear a suit of armor in its entirety in order to gain the AC benefit, but there's no explicit rule that says it's all or you get nothing. Very few DMs will not allow you to replace the, let's say non-critical, pieces with something else in order to benefit from boots or gauntlets or a helmet with magical properties. The intent of the game is to allow everyone a set amount of slots for special equipment, I wouldn't cut down on that on account of a largely aesthetical argument.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You're taking it rather to an extreme. RAI is to not allow you to cheat by wearing one of one kind of boot and one of another. Using a magic plate armor with a magic set of gauntlets doesn't break the game. RAW you're probably right. If a suit of plate includes a visored helm, then you can't really use it at the same time as the Helm of Comprehend Languages. But whatever.
I certainly think you can substitute any helm or gauntlets you want for the stock helm and gauntlets from a suit of mundane plate armor, and not diminish the plate armor's AC.
Interesting!
Lately I've been leaning away from "the fluff is just there to spruce up the mechanics" and towards "the fluff IS mechanics, and furthermore it's the more important aspect when the two come into conflict." And with that philosophy, I'd definitely restrict plate in this way.
However, I haven't really had a chance to USE this philosophy because I'm not DMing right now, so idk if it's any good.
I do think it's worth mentioning that full plate is an absolute no-brainer for a ton of characters, and the only reason they don't use it is that they can't afford it yet. There's an argument to be made that maybe other heavy armor types are meant to be more appealing through their ability to work with magic items. I'm not sure I'd agree with that argument but, idk, maybe.
I would argue based on "rule of cool" / fun that you should not apply rules this strictly. If players find a magic plate armor and a magic helm, it is more fun that they get to use both of them. It is not an absurd attempt at exploitation to load up on every bonus like using one of one kind of boot and one of another.
You can use magic armor with other magic items, but you can't split a magic armor between multiple PCs since it must be donned in the intended fashion
I know it's not subject in question (I can only second the previous answers), but if we're going strictly by RAW, a Barbarian should not be able to rage in Heavy Armor and a Monk should not be able to use martial arts wearing heavy armor - both classes are not even proficient with this kind if equipment.
The only reason I am pointing it out is because you're asking about RAW ^^' But if it works for your game, go for it.
I wouldn't allow it from a DM point of a view. When magic items are enchanted, they are enchanted as the entire "set"(all pieces of full plate for the bonus to full plate, all pieces of half plate for the bonus to half plate). Breaking the set means the enchantment was broken. RAW, I can't think of any rule that specifically disallows this, but RAW, the enchanted item is the one that was given in its totality, not the sum of its parts.
It's an interesting idea for sure, and I could see it being adjudicated many different ways.
Alternatively, you could decide that they don't get the full AC bonus they normally would if they split up the armour, unless they replace the missing pieces with parts that would impart the same AC bonus? (So they might only get +1 to AC instead of +3.) It might seem unfair, but the defense bonus you get to AC in full armour is because it's harder for people to do damage when all your skin is covered?
If they're armour sharing to both get a magical benefit / protection, I would probably rule that the magical part of the armour can't be split in two (unless you are the magic user who crafted the armour), and that by wearing it separately, the magic is divided between them to the point of not working. Maybe there's even consequences for splitting up parts of a magical item, since the person who crafted it never wanted it to be split up? I mean, otherwise over the years, what's the point of building a set of armour if the benefits can be split up?
I mean, if your ruling as a DM is that they absolutely shouldn't split up the item, but you want to make it clear to your players that they can't just split up magical items as they like, you could describe it something like this:
"As you separate the pieces, the feeling of protective magic thrumming within the suit dissipates... the armour was made to be worn as a set, and isn't as effective like this, so even as a regular set of armour it won't protect either of you as well if you split it up. There's a discordant feeling of wrongness as the two of you get further apart, the armour suddenly becoming heavier as though the sentience in the magic refuses to be divided so. Your speed will be decreased by 5ft for every five feet apart in distance and you'll suffer a penalty of -2 per every five feet, since every five feet apart from each other you are as the armour gets heavier and interrupts physical saving throws, base speed, attacks and physical ability checks."
My understanding of the question is slightly different to others. Let's use an example to illustrate my understanding:
A PC, Boris, is already wearing magic armour. Let's say, since I don't know of any, that it's the Armour of Flying, and grants you 30ft flying speed. Boris then finds the Gauntlets of Ogre Power, which increases the wearer's strength to 19.
The question is, can Boris wear both the Armour of Flying and the Gauntlets of Ogre Power?
Personally, I'd rule that it's fine, so long as it doesn't become unbalanced. I'm not sure whether it would or not, though.
I certainly wouldn't allow another PC, say, Bob, to pick up the gauntlets from the Armour of Flying and gain flight. Or if I did, I'd add a penalty such as, Bob only gets 10ft Flying speed, and requires so much concentration to use that he's now at disadvantage at saving throws, attack rolls and damage rolls while using it or attackers get advantage until Bob's next turn. A heavy enough penalty to deter its use except in desperation.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Just to clarify, by breaking the magic plate armor into its components, the barb is trying to get the breastplate medium armor and the monk an adamantine upgrade to his unarmed strikes. I've informed them both that they could do this, but neither would get crit immunity, which they accepted. The item was rolled randomly, and this party currently has no heavy armor user.
There may actually be multiple answers here - think about it from the enchanting wizard’s point of view. He could be using a ritual similar to mage armour where he would boy need to enchant the breastplate to grant the effect for the whole body and the other parts of the “ enchanted” set are actually mundane and can be switched in and out without affecting the base enchantment.
OR
The ritual could be more like magic weapon where higher level castings grant improved bonuses and the entire set needs to be present to grant the abilities and switching parts in and out would break the enchantment.
It could even be done in combination like some of the sets from earlier versions where adding parts of the original set adds enhancements to the whole beyond just the enhancements on the individual pieces.
in the OPs example I would eliminate any extra magical bonuses to all the split up pieces but the barbarian could still get the benefit of a monmagical Admantine breastplate, the monk sadly wouldn’t get the benefits as normal bracers and gauntlets don’t add anything to AC in the rules.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Yeah, that was my understanding of the question also. The other question (can they split it up the way they did, and if so, what should happen) is already in the past. OP made a ruling and moved on, which is great.
Some items would be easy to layer on top of or underneath armor (a cape), and then some would just not make any sense to wear with armor (another set of armor), and then some would be possible to wear only by replacing parts of the armor. It's that last one that is the question. For full plate, according to the description of the armor, that would logically include boots, gauntlets, and a helmet - all of which are types of magic items that a player might want to combine with magic full plate. Thus, the question. Can they?
For further context, the other types of heavy armor include different pieces. Ring mail mentions none of these; chain mail has gauntlets; splint has none of these. Only full plate has a helmet and boots. Also, scale mail (medium armor) has gauntlets.
I think most people will assume they can just swap out their magic armor's gauntlets for other magic gauntlets, and boots for boots, and helmet for helmet, just because (like me) they haven't thought about it, and if you're going to rule otherwise, you ought to do so early on, maybe even in session zero, just to set expectations.
Also: Anybody think you should be able to replace the helmet with a hat?
I think the intent of the developers is that you should be able to use all your magic item "slots" regardless of the type of armor you're using so yes, I do think that.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
RAW you cannot break it up, and while I think that what you've done is perfectly fine, I would consider the breatsplate to be heavy armour in terms of stealth disadvantage.
I think you're right. It lines up with the "simplify when possible" philosophy of so much of the game. However, there are some reasons to suspect otherwise. The fact that the armor descriptions say "it includes," rather than "it usually includes" or something similar, for one. For two, to take it to the extreme, surely you would agree that a character shouldn't be wearing three pairs of boots at the same time, even if they can attune to all of them?
That'd be getting three uses out of one slot for a magical item, so no - that's clearly not what's intended.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Oh, you meant "slot" in the 3.5e sense. I thought you meant attunement slots.
The argument here, then, is that full plate occupies the armor, boots, gauntlets, and helmet slots. Other armor only occupies two, or usually just one, of those slots. I take it you understand that argument, you just don't find it very compelling?
I would say yes. The bulk of the magic full plate remains. Replacing gauntlets with other magical gauntlets won't affect the AC, and I don't think it will affect the magic significantly either. On the other hand, you can't swap out the breastplate from the magical full plate for a different magical breastplate. You've lost too much of the original armor.
I'm imagining a rule like the rule for exchanging damaged bills. If you have > 50% of the bill, it's worth full value. This gives some leniency, but prevents you from dividing the item in such a way as to duplicate the value.
No. You can swap it for a different helmet. I don't think swapping a helm for the hat will diminish the magic, but it will diminish the AC. Maybe give a -1 penalty.
Correct, because the DMG says to use common sense: you can't wear two helmets, but you can wear a circlet under a helmet; you can't wear two sets of gauntlets, but you can probably wear gloves under a pair of gauntlets; etc. To me that indicates the rules aren't meant to prohibit the wearing of wondrous items if you're wearing armour on the same part of your body. That makes it silly - in my opinion - to tell a player their character can't wear a pair of magical boots just because they happen to be wearing full plate rather than a breastplate, while if the boots were sandals or wraps or socks for all I care it wouldn't be an issue.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].