PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Mithral or Adamantine, which would you choose?



Flail_master
2010-09-19, 01:41 PM
so yeah basically, if you had the choice between a set of full armour that feels incredibly light, or a medium set of armour that can withstand ridiculous amounts of damage and take some hits for you which would you pick? :smallsmile:

For weapons: A sword that is incredibly light for its size, or a sword that can cut through almost any substance? :smallbiggrin:

just a little thing i was thinking about earlier

Icewraith
2010-09-19, 01:46 PM
My characters tend to go with a medium armor that feels really light (Usually have a good dex or items of dex, or also evasion. Current character is wearing a light armor that feels really light cause he has so much dex.), and a weapon that can cut through anything.

Gavinfoxx
2010-09-19, 01:47 PM
Are we assuming these things have the effects as noticed in D&D 3.5e?

Cause then its mithral for armor and adamantine for weapon. No contest.

If we are talking stuff about 'in something like real life', than steel is LIGHT ENOUGH for weapons. Really. Swords made to take into fights are really really really light, even the big two handers. And armor made to take into fights doesn't really slow you down or keep you from maneuvering, it just gets really hot and lowers your endurance. Even so, no one invented a kit that was light enough for a soldier. So I would say it's probably still the same -- the lighter armor, the more deadly sword.

Flail_master
2010-09-19, 01:49 PM
Are we assuming these things have the effects as noticed in D&D 3.5e?

Cause then its mithral for armor and adamantine for weapon. No contest.

If we are talking stuff about 'in something like real life', than steel is LIGHT ENOUGH for weapons. Really. Swords made to take into fights are really really really light, even the big two handers. And armor made to take into fights doesn't really slow you down or keep you from maneuvering, it just gets really hot and lowers your endurance. Even so, no one invented a kit that was light enough for a soldier. So I would say it's probably still the same -- the lighter armor, the more deadly sword.

haha yeah good points made there, i mean in D&D terms tho, the mechanics n all :smallbiggrin:

Gavinfoxx
2010-09-19, 01:52 PM
You know how much DR 3/- is worth when you can afford Adamantine Full Plate Armor? Absolutely Squat. You know how much mechanical difference in combat capability an iron longsword has with a steel longsword? None. You know how much difference in combat capability an adamantine longsword and an iron longsword has? A whole TON. You know how useful full plate that acts as a medium armor with higher max dex is? A whole TON.

arguskos
2010-09-19, 01:54 PM
so yeah basically, if you had the choice between a set of full armour that feels incredibly light, or a medium set of armour that can withstand ridiculous amounts of damage and take some hits for you which would you pick? :smallsmile:

For weapons: A sword that is incredibly light for its size, or a sword that can cut through almost any substance? :smallbiggrin:

just a little thing i was thinking about earlier
IRL:
Adamantine Breastplate > Mithril Plate, IMO. I value endurance and survival over light weight any day.

As for weapons, again, I'd rather be able to slice anything apart than have a really light sword. Weight is not a huge concern for me.

In D&D terms? Mithril armor and Adamantine weaponry.

oxybe
2010-09-19, 01:55 PM
depends.

for weapons, adamantine is generally the better choice. the added weight doesn't seem to make the weapon any less accurate as before yet cuts through stone like a flaming sword through a butter elemental. (also note that for for about 60gp, an adamantine arrow/bolt is cheap lockpick as it deals 1d4 damage and bypasses most metal's hardness).

the only way i see mithril as "better" then adamantine for a weapon is if your strength is hideously low, or you play via pathfinder rules where mithril counts as silver for the purpose of DR bypass.

for armor, mithril is generally better since it drops the armor to one category less. this can mean the difference between wearing armor you normally couldn't or a REALLY big drop in your encumbrance. adamantine's DR isn't impressive in the slightest. sure it might stop a goblin from hurting you but when you're up against the 6-legged Greater Claw Beast of Fakertown (who's name is misleading as it's actually a Fang Beast) DR 3/- won't help when it's dealing 10 times the DR value in damage, per hit.

Flail_master
2010-09-19, 02:05 PM
depends.

for weapons, adamantine is generally the better choice. the added weight doesn't seem to make the weapon any less accurate as before yet cuts through stone like a flaming sword through a butter elemental. (also note that for for about 60gp, an adamantine arrow/bolt is cheap lockpick as it deals 1d4 damage and bypasses most metal's hardness).

the only way i see mithril as "better" then adamantine for a weapon is if your strength is hideously low, or you play via pathfinder rules where mithril counts as silver for the purpose of DR bypass.

for armor, mithril is generally better since it drops the armor to one category less. this can mean the difference between wearing armor you normally couldn't or a REALLY big drop in your encumbrance. adamantine's DR isn't impressive in the slightest. sure it might stop a goblin from hurting you but when you're up against the 6-legged Greater Claw Beast of Fakertown (who's name is misleading as it's actually a Fang Beast) DR 3/- won't help when it's dealing 10 times the DR value in damage, per hit.

ahh very true of everyone here, seems to be a very obvious advantage to the mithral armour adamantine weapon combo.
makes sense after all, who doesnt want a sword that can cut anything? :smalltongue:

IRL however i think both would be equally useful (armour wise, i've never held a full steel battle ready sword before, but i have now been told its not as heavy as you would think)

mind you i've worn chainmail before, that stuff is heavy, mithral versions of armour would be infinitely more useful any warrior i think

arguskos
2010-09-19, 02:08 PM
IRL however i think both would be equally useful (armour wise, i've never held a full steel battle ready sword before, but i have now been told its not as heavy as you would think)
If you are capable of fighting in a battle, you won't have an issue with a steel sword. The adamantine would be heavier, sure, but still, you could use it without too many issues. The ability to just shatter enemy weapons and armor with an adamantine blade would be too valuable to pass up.


mind you i've worn chainmail before, that stuff is heavy, mithral versions of armour would be infinitely more useful any warrior i think
Adamantine is so hard that you could probably break weapons ON your armor. Yeah, the weight is an issue, but for front-line combat, there would be no substitute, IMO.

Flail_master
2010-09-19, 02:15 PM
Adamantine is so hard that you could probably break weapons ON your armor. Yeah, the weight is an issue, but for front-line combat, there would be no substitute, IMO.

Ha yeah very true, wouldn't pass up either to be honest though, i mean... mithral... adamantine, the fact you are being offered armour made of these incredibly rare or expensive materials must mean you are of high status (or you know... you found em :smalltongue:)

Both have their good point

... mind you shattering a persons sword on your chest would be soooo amazing :smallbiggrin:

mabriss lethe
2010-09-19, 02:16 PM
"light" is sort of a misnomer when it comes to weaponry, as is "heavy" in regards to chainmail. Unless you've spent a long time practicing with a sword, no matter how heavy, you won't have the endurance to swing it for very long. Likewise, chain mail's problem isn't the weight, it's the weight distribution (i.e. It has none.) All of the weight of the armor rests entirely on your shoulders. more sophisticated armors use various means to distribute the weight and support it more evenly across the body.

Spiryt
2010-09-19, 02:20 PM
mind you i've worn chainmail before, that stuff is heavy, mithral versions of armour would be infinitely more useful any warrior i think

If you're talking about hypothetical D&D like mithral stuff that " works the same only lighter" then indeed it probably be better....

In hard physical worlds thought, certain mass of material would be needed to achieve given properties needed for armor.

Not to mention that some weight is actually kinda needed for armor to work at all.

So such discussions are probably only killing a catgirls indeed. :smalltongue:

Foryn Gilnith
2010-09-19, 02:26 PM
Random idea; why not give Mithral weapons the properties currently given to Feycraft weapons?

iDM
2010-09-19, 02:40 PM
Mithral armor, because my characters tend to be more ninja than tank, but an adamantite short sword or two is preferable to a mithral weapon (although I would use mithral daggers over adamantine ones). Why? Because a mithral sword would be relatively ineffective. If a sword weighs an eighth of a freaking pound, it would have to be razor sharp to even inflict a serious wound in flesh, let alone cut through bone. As far as I know, swords usually rely on their momentum and weight for attacking, not their sharpness.

Morph Bark
2010-09-19, 02:52 PM
I have never really gone for the tanky and slow characters, preferring rogue-like or mage-ish characters, thus preferring something mithril than adamantine. I thought there was a kind of metal somewhere that had properties of both though - or that might have been a combo of two other special metals used in DnD that it possessed properties of.

EDIT:


As far as I know, swords usually rely on their momentum and weight for attacking, not their sharpness.

Unless it's a katana.

*shot*

I keed, I keed!

Spiryt
2010-09-19, 03:01 PM
As far as I know, swords usually rely on their momentum and weight for attacking, not their sharpness.

Eh...

One can't really work without each other, besides, motion of your body is what can provide most momentum anyway. It hugely depends on what kind of sword it is, and how and what it's attacking.

The 'optimal weight' if any is much more complicated thing than simple matters of momentum or whatever.

But one thing is correct of course, no sword weighing 1/8 of pound could really work anyhow.

Gavinfoxx
2010-09-19, 03:17 PM
Actually there are a good amount of sword types that don't need much sharpness at all. A bit yea, but nothing like razor sharpness or anything like that.

Flail_master
2010-09-19, 03:28 PM
In a way weight is actually needed for damage in a weapon as well, i mean think about it, the reason a mace works so well, isn't because its big, its because it's so heavy that when you swing it at someone it crushes their armour and flesh if unprotected, as well as bone. all about momentum, if you swung a foam mace at someone thats the same size as a metal one, its not going to do any damage is it? same goes for the principle of things falling on you, if its a light material it wont do as much damage

come to think of it, mithral as a material would actually reduce effectiveness of weapons (at least for bludgeoning two handed weapons and the such)

Spiryt
2010-09-19, 03:32 PM
Off course, less density would cause problems.

And not really for bludgeoning weapons, because you can still wack someone with wooden stuff just alright.

Sword made out of something much less dense than steel won't have so good sectional density, and thus won't cut or thrust trough soft matter so well.

Not enough particles pushing other ones aside in the given space.

Nidogg
2010-09-19, 03:44 PM
Cos my charicters were dying too often I went for a dwarven knight with 35 AC and dr3/- He died. He didnt survive long either. Shows you DR3/- is woth spit. By the time you can afford it even melle charicters are dealing at least 10 every hit (and thats an understatement).So ALways look after your touch AC before your DR, cos there are Very few ways to get a decent DR off items.

The sad thing was he died to a comrade who had drunk a endless rage pot in a classic dwarven "lets drink this potion and see what happens contest",
I got sheild. Big whoop.

arguskos
2010-09-19, 03:44 PM
I have never really gone for the tanky and slow characters, preferring rogue-like or mage-ish characters, thus preferring something mithril than adamantine. I thought there was a kind of metal somewhere that had properties of both though - or that might have been a combo of two other special metals used in DnD that it possessed properties of.
Glassteel is about as close as you're gonna get. :smallamused: It's got the weight properties of mithril and and the physical strength of adamantine (it has hardness 20 and 40 hp/inch). It does not defeat hardness of objects though, so you're short there. Source: Races of Faerun.

iDM
2010-09-19, 05:03 PM
Unless it's a katana.

*shot*

I keed, I keed!

Aah! Stop disputing my position with perfectly valid points!

I keed, I keed.

2xMachina
2010-09-20, 03:49 AM
I like Animated Mithral Shields.

Not proficient? Never mind, 0 ACP. Not sure how you would negate the 5% ASF though, so not for everyone. But if you're not an arcane caster, definitely pick 1 up, proficient or not.

Killer Angel
2010-09-20, 04:04 AM
haha yeah good points made there, i mean in D&D terms tho, the mechanics n all :smallbiggrin:

From a mechanical PoV, mithril armor usually gives a lot more advantages then Adamantine.
Sometime, Adamantine can be preferable for fluff reason (for example, if you think that adamantine is more suited for dwarves and Mithril for Elves).

For weapons, Adamantine is superior to Mithril, but also in this case, you could favor mithiril for fluff reasons.

Morph Bark
2010-09-20, 04:08 AM
From a mechanical PoV, mithril armor usually gives a lot more advantages then Adamantine.
Sometime, Adamantine can be preferable for fluff reason (for example, if you think that adamantine is more suited for dwarves and Mithril for Elves).

For weapons, Adamantine is superior to Mithril, but also in this case, you could favor mithiril for fluff reasons.

If you play a dwarf who doesn't cast arcane spells or uses Tumble, Swim, etc. much, adamantine armour is the way to go, yes.

Malbordeus
2010-09-20, 04:16 AM
i'd choose dragon-craft Dragonhide armour... :smallbiggrin:

FelixG
2010-09-20, 04:51 AM
Adamantine, because its awesome...and you could bodyslam a wall apart :P

panaikhan
2010-09-20, 07:21 AM
Having played a Warforged Juggernaut (who have Adamantine Body as a requirement), I can honestly say, I'd prefer Mithral armour.

OK, the Jugger could bull-rush WALLS, but try swimming. or balancing. or moving.
Even Mithral does nothing for the movement penalty of armour, but at least you can carry something else at the same time.

Weapon-wise, I've never even encountered a Mithral weapon - but have found (and commissioned) Adamantine weapons. Even a lowly Adamantine dagger makes a great lockpick.

Greenish
2010-09-20, 07:36 AM
If you play a dwarf who doesn't cast arcane spells or uses Tumble, Swim, etc. much, adamantine armour is the way to go, yes.Well, at least dwarfs can try to tumble in full plate.


Even Mithral does nothing for the movement penalty of armour, but at least you can carry something else at the same time.Well, it drops it down a weight category, so armour that'd normally be medium won't slow you down.



Of course, one of the more amusing consequences of D&D rules is that, given reasonable strength, taking your plate armour off and carrying it in your hands allows you to move faster. :smallamused:

Snake-Aes
2010-09-20, 07:41 AM
Weapon-wise, I've never even encountered a Mithral weapon - but have found (and commissioned) Adamantine weapons. Even a lowly Adamantine dagger makes a great lockpick.

The Glorified Letter OpenerŪ is for giving yourself something to hold to the ship's deck as you fail your balance check and falls to your certain doom.

Knaight
2010-09-20, 07:59 AM
But one thing is correct of course, no sword weighing 1/8 of pound could really work anyhow.

An estoc or tuck might, due to their nature as thrusting swords, its just that any materials light enough to do that in real life are probably going to make it too flexible. That said, a sword that light is going to be near useless for blocking, so its not as if having one that light is an advantage.

Jack Zander
2010-09-20, 08:06 AM
Would it be balanced to allow all mithril weapons be finesesable?

Snake-Aes
2010-09-20, 08:08 AM
Well, if you want to keep pesky magic out of the system, make them deal damage as if they were one category smaller and give them finesse.

Jack Zander
2010-09-20, 08:35 AM
Well, if you want to keep pesky magic out of the system, make them deal damage as if they were one category smaller and give them finesse.

That completely negates the purpose of some weapons being mithral, as you gain no mechanical difference from wielding a mithral longsword over a regualr shortsword. (Unless of course you took WF: longsword, but then why would you also take Weapon Finese?)

Tetrasodium
2010-09-20, 11:21 AM
Having played a Warforged Juggernaut (who have Adamantine Body as a requirement), I can honestly say, I'd prefer Mithral armour.

OK, the Jugger could bull-rush WALLS, but try swimming. or balancing. or moving.
Even Mithral does nothing for the movement penalty of armour, but at least you can carry something else at the same time.

Adamantine body isn't as terrible as adamantine armor for things like trying to swim, plus the whole not needing to breath means you can just walk along the bottom :). Vanguard treads (think spikes/teeth that bite & grip the ground attached to your feet) are a nifty component can relatively cheaply protect against a lot of things that would otherwise require balance checks and the like :).


Not needing to breathe allows you to swim without fear of drowning, and the penalty to Swim checks from taking feats such as Adamantine Body does not double as do normal armor check penalties. Even so, you should consider taking ranks in Swim if you want to be able to navigate anything but still water, since you do not sink or float any more easily than a human.

-page 22 races of eberron

Dresil
2010-09-20, 11:32 AM
I like to take Light Armor Proficiency with my Wizard and give him +x Twilight Mithral Chain Shirt. 0% Spell Failure and cheaper than Bracers of Armor.

I call it Caster's Armor. :vaarsuvius:

Esser-Z
2010-09-20, 01:05 PM
Mithral-Adamantine alloy.

(I once actually talked a DM into letting me have that. The cost of both with the benefits of both)

Shenanigans
2010-09-20, 03:37 PM
I agree with the general sentiment of mithral armor and adamantine weapons, but I'd say the final decision as to whether to go with light, medium, or heavy armor depends on your character and design. With the aforementioned Wizard, the mithral twilight chain shirt is the way to go; with other characters who need to wear light or medium armor in order to have fast movement, be able to cast spells, use some class ability, etc., a mithral breastplate or full plate is nice. Sometimes you just want to be able to max out the use of your Dex bonus or your skill ranks.

For example, I currently run a Goliath barbarian who uses a glamered, dwarvencraft mithral breastplate with quick-release straps. It imposes only a minor (-1) armor check penalty, is low-profile, and works in-character to show off his culturally important skin markings by being glamered to look like something more revealing (like in the Goliath picture from near the beginning of their chapter in RoS.) The quick-release straps are mostly for flavor too, as a -1 armor check penalty is very minor. Effectually, the breastplate allows the best armor class for the investment while maintaining full movement.

NEO|Phyte
2010-09-20, 03:49 PM
I like to take Light Armor Proficiency with my Wizard and give him +x Twilight Mithral Chain Shirt. 0% Spell Failure and cheaper than Bracers of Armor.

I call it Caster's Armor. :vaarsuvius:

Why bother getting proficiency with armor that has 0 ACP?

Beorn080
2010-09-20, 03:59 PM
I too would take mithral armor over adamantine, unless I knew I was going into a situation where the adamantine would help, say a goblin siege. DR3/- might not be much normally, but against an army of goblins with small longswords, it pretty much grants invulnerability.

Granted, your not going to be moving far, but that's when you use the catapult system plus ring of Feather Fall for some Dynamic Entry.