Aurelian Plate Armour with Nullstone Runes

Stub-class article · First seen: s10 · Last seen: s16
Aurelian Plate Armour with Nullstone Runes
Aurelian Plate Armour · Nullstone Plate · Nullstone Armour · the Aurelian armour · Vasquez's plate
Aurelian Plate Armour with Nullstone Runes, Heavy plate armour (Nullstone runework) portrait
Item
StatusLost
First seens10
Last seens16
TypeHeavy plate armour (Nullstone runework)
AttunementNot stated
HolderVasquez (presumed; departed offscreen)
OriginTaken from the Aurelian Paladin's body, session 10

The Aurelian Plate Armour with Nullstone Runes is the plate of the Aurelian Paladin killed in session 10, taken by Vasquez and worn by him until he left play. Ruin’s Identify met resistance, and the DM named it Nullstone armour that gives “advantage against saving throws against arcane spells” [17][40]. Vasquez changed its crest to his adopted family’s, and it still looked “relatively Aurelian” [41][20]. It left play with him in the retcon at the start of session 17 [12].

Overview

The Aurelian Plate Armour with Nullstone Runes is the full plate of the unnamed Aurelian Paladin who led the session 10 ambush in Umbrafall. Vasquez asked for it as soon as the Paladin was dead [15], The Broker recognised it as enchanted [16], and that night Ruin cast Identify on it. The armour resisted, and the DM said it was Nullstone armour [17]. It is next seen on Vasquez in session 12 [18] and goes out of play with him in the session 17 retcon.

Description

Full plate with the Aurelian crest worked into the armour itself, so that Hugo could not rip it off [1]. With help it took about ten minutes to strip from the body, “a set of suspiciously clean armor” [19]. After Vasquez’s work its crest was his adopted family’s, but it was “still looking relatively Aurelian” [20]. The DM later confirmed the sigil as the forge or family mark of Vasquez’s adoptive father, Bison Bronzgut (ruling 38).

Mechanics (as played)

  • Arcane saves. Asked by Ruin whether it would block beneficial spells such as healing, the DM said no: it “gives you advantage against saving throws against arcane spells” [21].
  • Runework. The effect is carried in the rune work inside the armour [22]. The DM added that “no one in Aurelia is really magical” and that even ordinary fighters wear Nullstone [23].
  • Reflected spells. Ruin’s Witch Bolt, cast at the Paladin, “just kind of gets reflected off his armor” [24].
  • Reworking. Changing the crest needed no roll [25]. Remaking the whole suit would need a forge, about eight hours and a flat roll, since Vasquez is not proficient in Arcana, with a chance of ruining it [26].
  • Armour class. With it Vasquez had more AC than Caelumn [27].
  • Table readings, not rulings. A player said “if you’ve got any magic you probably don’t want to be wearing that” [28], and Hugo’s player thought wearing it would block his Rage and suggested half-plate instead [29]. Asked in session 18 whether it stopped its wearer casting, Terry said it probably did, but that this did not matter to a fighter with a gunblade [30].

Open questions

  • Is it attuned? No line says the armour needs attunement, and none shows Vasquez attuning to it.
  • Can the runes be copied? Terry asked whether they could be copied as a tattoo, with ink ground from the armour, and the DM answered “You definitely try.” [31]. Nothing came of it.
  • Where is it now? Not stated.

History in the campaign

Session 10: Ruin Joins, the Aurelian Conspiracy, the Plate Armour

Main article: Session 10

After the alley fight Vasquez asked to take the armour off the Paladin’s body, “I think I might need it more than a dead person”, and Hugo agreed, warning that Aurelians would ask why he had a paladin’s armour, but wanted the Broker to see it first [32]. The Broker offered to take it in trade, was told it was promised to Vasquez, and said he recognised enchanted armour [33]. That night Ruin’s Identify met resistance and the DM named it Nullstone armour [34]. Vasquez asked to remake it with his adopted family’s crest, then spent the end of the long rest changing only the crest [35][7].

Session 12: Eldwythe and the Candy Cottage

Main article: Session 12

On the road to Eldwythe, Hugo joked that the Black Mask had put a target on Vasquez’s back, and Caelumn said he would rather Vasquez took the attacks because he had more AC. The DM doubted it, then said that with the new plate armour he did, and Vasquez said he might now survive an encounter [36].

Session 14: The Gummy Mummy and Aurelian Eldwythe

Main article: Session 14

While the party argued over how to help the cursed Caelumn and Vasquez, Terry asked who had been wearing the Nullstone armour, and the answer was Vasquez. He wondered whether it should have stopped the Gummy Mummy’s curse, or could lift it, because it repels the magic in the curse [9]. No ruling is recorded.

Session 16: Through the Sewers, Onto the Skiff

Main article: Session 16

In the sewers a half-dead smuggler asked Vasquez, “You’re with the white cloaks?” The DM reminded Vasquez that he was wearing Aurelian armour, and Vasquez answered that he knew what it looked like but was not one of them [10]. In the earlier fight with the fungal creatures, a blow from one of them left only a small scratch on his plate [37].

Session 17: New Hands, the Black Mask’s Renegotiation, and the Rimeclaw

Main article: Session 17

The armour is not worn on screen. The retcon that opens the session leaves Vasquez and Althea behind, and the DM later says the Aurelians captured them [11][12]. Warning the new party members in the skiff, Terry said the Aurelians resist arcane magic and, he thought, wear Nullstone armour that disables arcane effects [13].

Session 18: The Wyrm Falls, the Catfish Escapes, and Mike Dies on the Road

Main article: Session 18

Mike wanted half-plate or adamantine, and Terry said Nullstone was far commoner here and described it as the black stone that disables magical effects [38]. Trying to recall who had worn Nullstone armour, Terry asked, “Was that Vasquez?”, and the DM answered, “Vasquez was wearing Nullstone armor.” Terry added that they had got it from a paladin [39].

Status

As of session 18. Presumed with Vasquez, who has been departed offscreen since the retcon (ruling 25). The DM’s past tense in session 18 is the last word on it [14].

See also

References

  1. ^ Session 10, line 1056-1057: The Aurelian crest is part of the armour and cannot be ripped off.
  2. ^ Session 10, line 1315-1332: The Broker offers to take the armour in trade and recognises it as enchanted.
  3. ^ Session 10, line 1605-1643: Ruin's Identify; the armour resists the spell; it is Nullstone armour.
  4. ^ Session 10, line 1680-1688: The DM says even ordinary fighters in Aurelia wear Nullstone.
  5. ^ Session 10, line 1716-1745: Vasquez asks to remake the suit and add his adopted family's crest; the DM sets the cost.
  6. ^ Session 10, line 1781-1794: The DM: "it gives you advantage against saving throws against arcane spells"; the effect is in the runework.
  7. ^ Session 10, line 1838-1841: The crest is changed and the suit still looks relatively Aurelian.
  8. ^ Session 12, line 476-478: With the new plate armour Vasquez has more AC than Caelumn.
  9. ^ Session 14, line 538-540: Terry asks who wore the Nullstone armour and whether it could lift Vasquez's curse.
  10. ^ Session 16, line 1140-1143: A smuggler takes Vasquez's Aurelian armour for the white cloaks.
  11. ^ Session 17, line 130: The retcon that leaves Vasquez and Althea behind.
  12. ^ Session 17, line 785: The DM restates it; they were captured by the Aurelians.
  13. ^ Session 17, line 1146: Terry warns the new party members of Aurelian Nullstone armour.
  14. ^ Session 18, line 1930: The DM: "Vasquez was wearing Nullstone armor".
  15. ^ Session 10, line 1071: Inline citation.
  16. ^ Session 10, line 1332: Inline citation.
  17. ^ Session 10, line 1639-1643: Inline citation.
  18. ^ Session 12, line 477: Inline citation.
  19. ^ Session 10, line 1380-1381: Inline citation.
  20. ^ Session 10, line 1841: Inline citation.
  21. ^ Session 10, line 1780-1784: Inline citation.
  22. ^ Session 10, line 1788: Inline citation.
  23. ^ Session 10, line 1685-1687: Inline citation.
  24. ^ Session 10, line 964: Inline citation.
  25. ^ Session 10, line 1774: Inline citation.
  26. ^ Session 10, line 1725-1747: Inline citation.
  27. ^ Session 12, line 476-477: Inline citation.
  28. ^ Session 10, line 1644: Inline citation.
  29. ^ Session 10, line 1659-1662: Inline citation.
  30. ^ Session 18, line 1933-1934: Inline citation.
  31. ^ Session 10, line 1791-1802: Inline citation.
  32. ^ Session 10, line 1071-1087: Inline citation.
  33. ^ Session 10, line 1317-1332: Inline citation.
  34. ^ Session 10, line 1621-1643: Inline citation.
  35. ^ Session 10, line 1716-1775: Inline citation.
  36. ^ Session 12, line 475-478: Inline citation.
  37. ^ Session 16, line 503: Inline citation.
  38. ^ Session 18, line 1917-1922: Inline citation.
  39. ^ Session 18, line 1927-1932: Inline citation.
  40. ^ Session 10, line 1784: Inline citation.
  41. ^ Session 10, line 1722: Inline citation.
This article is a stub. You can help Nickipedia by expanding it.