A minute ago, Alessandro Gianni and me were writing a magic cloak together on Google Drive. I put the worn tag on the cloak and Alessandro Gianni protested. So we took the rulebook and looked for a solution.
On p. 327, all the armors have the worn tag. On p. 324 it is written: “Worn: To use it, you have to be wearing it” and on p. 399: “Worn (equipment): It’s only useful if you wear it like clothes”.
On p. 335 the Cloak of Silent Stars has no worn tag, but I suppose you must wear it like clothes to use it, and I suppose the same for Timunn’s Armor (p. 341), which has not the worn tag, too.
So, what’s the mystery about the worn tag? Is it only applicable with armors?
Magic items use shorthand for convinience.
So, in your opinion, a cloak should normally have the tag worn?
Indeed. Unless it is always invisible.
Like a worn invisibility cloak can’t make a rock disappear. It needs to draw on the astral body of a person wearing it.
I like your interpretation.
I love Tims thought processes. But the book’s given tags are inconsistently applied, so while the presence of a tag may be considered definitive, the absence shouldn’t be.
What Adrian said. Otherwise you get long strings of tags that all say things that go without saying.