PDA

View Full Version : Mithril Full Plate



daggaz
2007-01-31, 01:44 PM
Does this stuff still count as heavy armor? Or more specifically, can a dwarf use springattack while wearing it?

pestilenceawaits
2007-01-31, 01:46 PM
As far as I know mithral armor acts in all ways as one size category lighter so full plate would be medium.

Scipio
2007-01-31, 01:47 PM
The entry on mithril says that it is treated as one category lighter for "purposes of movement and other limitations". So it would allow you to Spring Attack. You still have to have Heavy Armor Proficiency to wear it, but that isn't usually a problem.

Person_Man
2007-01-31, 01:55 PM
It counts as medium. Most barbarians I know where it so that they qualify for Fast Movement.

Scipio
2007-01-31, 02:02 PM
It counts as medium. Most barbarians I know where it so that they qualify for Fast Movement.

I have heard people using this strategy, but I do not believe it is supported by the rules. The entry on mithril says
Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations. Heavy armors are treated as medium, and medium armors are treated as light, but light armors are still treated as light.

I do not believe that "other limitations" allows you to avoid the feat requirement. It could mean that, but it seems like a bit of a stretch.

SpiderBrigade
2007-01-31, 02:05 PM
He didn't say they skipped the feat requirement, I don't think.

Ted_Stryker
2007-01-31, 03:11 PM
I have heard people using this strategy, but I do not believe it is supported by the rules. The entry on mithril says...

I do not believe that "other limitations" allows you to avoid the feat requirement. It could mean that, but it seems like a bit of a stretch.
Fast Movement is a Barbarian class ability, not a feat. It is lost when wearing heavy armor.

Hzurr
2007-01-31, 03:25 PM
But doesn't it say specifically "For the purposes of movement"? I mean, isn't that supposed to be one of the spiffy things about Mithril, that you can use heavier armor than you would normally be able to get away with?

Winged One
2007-01-31, 03:27 PM
Fast Movement is a Barbarian class ability, not a feat. It is lost when wearing heavy armor.
Barbarians aren't proficient in heavy armor without the feat or a multiclass.

Ted_Stryker
2007-01-31, 04:25 PM
Barbarians aren't proficient in heavy armor without the feat or a multiclass.
OK, I see, I guess, but that's pretty effin' nit-picky for an AC boost of 3.

the_tick_rules
2007-01-31, 04:29 PM
go for mithril breastplate, they're awesome.

Matthew
2007-01-31, 04:45 PM
This question appears in the FAQ. The rules don't quite support it, but the answer there given was that it would be sensible to consider Mithral Full Plate Medium Armour.

daggaz
2007-01-31, 07:43 PM
No way, I would have to jump ALL over any rules lawyers who *didn't* want barbarians to use mithril full plate without taking the heavy armor feat. First, it says 'for purposes of movement AND OTHER LIMITATIONS.' I'm sorry, but 'and other limitations' is completely open to interpretation. Anybody who argues otherwise (as a rules lawyer) is missing a key part of their brain, namely the part that deals with cold, hard logic.

Second, it says, in a completely seperate sentence, 'Heavy armors are treated as medium..' So given the first heavy ambiguity, and then taking this second complete and seperate sentence into judgmement, I would have to say that yes, Mithril Full Plate, as a heavy armor made of mithril, is hereby treated as a medium armor, for purposes of movement and OTHER LIMITATIONS. Said limitations are absolutely undefined, and by lack of any definition, any limitation is allowed. Ergo, a feat limitation would qualify as some 'other limitation.'

You could even go a step further and claim that strictly crunch wise, a barbarian's limitation from using heavy armor has mainly to do with his bonus movement abilities, which is clearly defined as one of the ways to rule mithril as a medium armor. Ergo, the spirit of the rules are also upheld.

Even fluff wise, barbarians have no knack for heavy armors, mostly due to a lack of technology. But mithril is special, so special in fact, that it weighs and feels and acts in every way like a lighter armor, therefore it should be not beyond the reach of an average barbarian to adapt to it. (If they have an int of 3, I would DM that they couldn't figure out how to wear it. Anybody of reasonable int will figure it out, and after that, because it FEELS like medium armor, they will quickly become accustomed to fighting/moving in it.)

Just my 2 cents.

JaronK
2007-01-31, 08:23 PM
No way, I would have to jump ALL over any rules lawyers who *didn't* want barbarians to use mithril full plate without taking the heavy armor feat. First, it says 'for purposes of movement AND OTHER LIMITATIONS.' I'm sorry, but 'and other limitations' is completely open to interpretation. Anybody who argues otherwise (as a rules lawyer) is missing a key part of their brain, namely the part that deals with cold, hard logic.


You know, ad hominim attacks are part of a logical arguement are considered rude and wrong. You've said here "Here's my oppinion. Anyone who disagrees is a rules lawyer and is brain damaged." Don't do it. Either make your point with facts or don't make your point at all. The Ad Hominum thing just makes you look childish, and doesn't make you more right.

JaronK

Matthew
2007-01-31, 08:36 PM
Here's the FAQ entry:

Dungeons & Dragons FAQ (December, 2006), pp. 36-37.




Is a character proficient with light armor, such as a rogue, considered to be proficient with mithral breastplate? What about a character proficient with medium armor, such as a barbarian—is he considered proficient with mithral full plate armor?
The description of mithral on page 284 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide is less precise than it could be in defining how it interacts with armor proficiency rules. The simplest answer and the one that the Sage expects most players and DMs use is that mithral armor is treated as one category lighter for all purposes, including proficiency. This isn’t exactly what the Dungeon Master’s Guide says, but it’s a reasonable interpretation of the intent of the rule (and it’s supported by a
number of precedents, including the descriptions of various specific mithral armors described on page 220 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide and a variety of NPC stat blocks).
Thus, a ranger or rogue could wear a mithral breastplate without suffering a nonproficiency penalty (since it’s treated as light armor), and each could use any ability dependent on wearing light or no armor (such as evasion or the ranger’s combat style). A barbarian could wear mithral full plate armor without suffering a nonproficiency penalty (since it’s treated as medium armor), and he could use any ability dependent on wearing medium or lighter armor (such as fast movement).

The same would be true of any other special material that uses the same or similar language as mithral (such as darkleaf, on page 120 of the EBERRON Campaign Setting).

Thomas
2007-01-31, 08:46 PM
I definitely rule mithral armor to count as the next lighter type in all ways; it's just easier. Full plate is Medium, etc.

Races of the Wild supports this; it lists a load of mithral armor; chainmail and breastplate are light, full plate is medium, etc. Regardless of the DMG's imprecise wording, this is apparently WotC's intention.

Scipio
2007-01-31, 09:15 PM
Well the FAQ supports the more open interpretation. I have no problem with that. It is easier to treat it that way, but it does cut into the few classes that get heavy armor proficiency.

TheOOB
2007-01-31, 11:30 PM
Well the FAQ supports the more open interpretation. I have no problem with that. It is easier to treat it that way, but it does cut into the few classes that get heavy armor proficiency.

Yes because allowing barbarians to gain a few extra AC really makes them contend with fighters and clerics, who still gain useful abilities past level 5...

JaronK
2007-01-31, 11:35 PM
Wait, Fighters gain useful abilities past level 4? I don't buy that...

JaronK

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-31, 11:40 PM
Pick up the Dread Commando class later on, and that mithral full plate comes with no armor check penalty.

Yes, you read that right.

Person_Man
2007-02-01, 12:01 AM
Yeah, its supported by the FAQ, and Mithril heavy armor is also quite expensive.

Red Sky Knight
2007-02-01, 12:37 AM
It's just me, i know, but I have a lot of trouble imagining someone performing spring attack or moving as fast as normal in any sort of full plate armour. Maybe I'm missing a part of my brain.

Talya
2007-02-01, 12:45 AM
Everything I've seen says that armor made with mithral actually becomes one category lighter for ALL purposes, including the proficiency required to wear it.


Red Sky Knight:
Just remember, armor of mithril chain feels to the wearer like it's fine silk cloth (although it's still "light armor"), and a full suit of mithril plate will have chain at the joints, with plate only covering the non-flexible parts of the body, and it weighs the same as a chain shirt, or hide armor.

TheElfLord
2007-02-01, 01:26 AM
It's just me, i know, but I have a lot of trouble imagining someone performing spring attack or moving as fast as normal in any sort of full plate armour. Maybe I'm missing a part of my brain.

Well in some acounts knights in steel plate mail were able to jump on to their horses and turn sumersalts in full plate.

Norsesmithy
2007-02-01, 01:28 AM
It's just me, i know, but I have a lot of trouble imagining someone performing spring attack or moving as fast as normal in any sort of full plate armour. Maybe I'm missing a part of my brain.
Many of your fellow board members have had the good fortune to actually experience reproduction plate armour, myself included. I even swam in an unfitted suit of maximillian plate, and if it had been made to fit me specifically, it would have been only easier.

It really weighs you down far less than the DnD rules set makes it seem. Acrobatics, and athletics were considered an everyday aspect of a man at arm's training. They were expected to be able to vault over their horse, and turn cartwheels.

Take into account supernaturally light alloys, and you are really cooking with fire.

Winged One
2007-02-01, 01:29 AM
Huh. I could have sworn I read somewhere that mithral didn't change the proficiencies required. Looks like I was wrong about that.

Renegade Paladin
2007-02-01, 01:37 AM
[/left]


You know, ad hominim attacks are part of a logical arguement are considered rude and wrong. You've said here "Here's my oppinion. Anyone who disagrees is a rules lawyer and is brain damaged." Don't do it. Either make your point with facts or don't make your point at all. The Ad Hominum thing just makes you look childish, and doesn't make you more right.

JaronK
In the interests of logical correctness, I must point out that he did not commit the ad hominem fallacy. That would have taken the form of a statement to the effect of "you're wrong because you're brain damaged." He said it was wrong, presented a valid reason why, and then threw in an insult, which is not a logical fallacy in any sense. It's rude, but not fallacious.

CelestialStick
2007-02-01, 01:40 AM
Pick up the Dread Commando class later on, and that mithral full plate comes with no armor check penalty.

Yes, you read that right.

What book (or other source) contains the dream commando? Thanks.:smallsmile:

Renegade Paladin
2007-02-01, 01:52 AM
Heroes of Battle.

Behold_the_Void
2007-02-01, 01:53 AM
Heroes of Battle. It's designed to be able to infiltrate behind enemy lines in heavy armor.

CelestialStick
2007-02-01, 01:55 AM
Thanks Renegade and Behold. Is that a Wizards book a third-party d20?

Blinkbear
2007-02-01, 02:10 AM
It's just me, i know, but I have a lot of trouble imagining someone performing spring attack or moving as fast as normal in any sort of full plate armour. Maybe I'm missing a part of my brain.

Sorry, but I already hear the familiar sound of a catgirl screaming for a last time as a lightning strikes it. *Sniff*

Seriously: There are rules that don't seem to fit the real life physics in any way. Damn, whole combat is in no way realistic or can you imagine to being brought down to 0 HP and then healed and then fighting back? Can you imagine that a fighter at 10/200 HP fights as well as one with 200/200 HP? These are the rules. DND is not bothering with real life physics so much and I think it is okay. You don't have to agree of course. But I ask you something:

"You know, I seriously can't imagine a mage having really problems casting spells with somatic components in a light armor. I mean, they can cast spells with somatic components when someone hacked of half of their arm and they have a wound in their belly that spits blood like a llama, but they are not able to use their arms enough if they are wearing a fricking chain shirt?"

I don't mean to be rude or anything, really no offense meant. Sorry if it sounds like that, this then might be due to me not being a native speaker. :smalleek:

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-02-01, 02:47 AM
Thanks Renegade and Behold. Is that a Wizards book a third-party d20?

WotC book.

CelestialStick
2007-02-01, 03:03 AM
WotC book.

Thanks. I'm not familiar with that one. When did it come out? Is it 3.0 or 3.5? Is it generally any good?

JaronK
2007-02-01, 03:26 AM
In the interests of logical correctness, I must point out that he did not commit the ad hominem fallacy. That would have taken the form of a statement to the effect of "you're wrong because you're brain damaged." He said it was wrong, presented a valid reason why, and then threw in an insult, which is not a logical fallacy in any sense. It's rude, but not fallacious.

No, it was an Ad Hominem in addition to some actual points. He did say that anyone who disagreed with him was a "Rules Lawyer" (obviously intended as an insult) and brain damaged. That part was a falacy. The rest of the arguement is a different story.

JaronK

Renegade Paladin
2007-02-01, 04:17 AM
Thanks. I'm not familiar with that one. When did it come out? Is it 3.0 or 3.5? Is it generally any good?
It's 3.5 and good for it's purpose. It came out last year, I think; I can't seem to locate my copy at the moment, though it was sitting on the table just a few hours ago.

Basically, the book's only really generally useful if you plan on either running a war campaign where the player characters are involved in the military or your PCs own a fortress and wish to outfit it. It's a genre book, designed to help run campaigns in the specific genre of war. (It's companion, Heroes of Horror, is also one such; it's title should make it's genre focus obvious. :smallamused:) It's good for what it does, but if a war campaign doesn't interest you, then I can't recommend buying it.

No, it was an Ad Hominem in addition to some actual points. He did say that anyone who disagreed with him was a "Rules Lawyer" (obviously intended as an insult) and brain damaged. That part was a falacy. The rest of the arguement is a different story.

JaronK
No, in order to be a fallacy, it would have to be used as the proof of an argument. A freestanding insult that happens to be in the same post as a point of logic does not by itself constitute an ad hominem, and I completely missed the part where he tried to prove anything with "rules lawyer" or "brain damage" standing in for his reasoning.

CelestialStick
2007-02-01, 06:04 AM
It's 3.5 and good for it's purpose. It came out last year, I think; I can't seem to locate my copy at the moment, though it was sitting on the table just a few hours ago.

Basically, the book's only really generally useful if you plan on either running a war campaign where the player characters are involved in the military or your PCs own a fortress and wish to outfit it. It's a genre book, designed to help run campaigns in the specific genre of war. (It's companion, Heroes of Horror, is also one such; it's title should make it's genre focus obvious. :smallamused:) It's good for what it does, but if a war campaign doesn't interest you, then I can't recommend buying it.

No, in order to be a fallacy, it would have to be used as the proof of an argument. A freestanding insult that happens to be in the same post as a point of logic does not by itself constitute an ad hominem, and I completely missed the part where he tried to prove anything with "rules lawyer" or "brain damage" standing in for his reasoning.

Does the book by any chance contain any pregenerated forts? I'm in the process of trying to develop a praire fort and a fortified port for the PCs to attempt to recapture from the enemy. I have some general ideas for what I'd like, but my spacio-mechanical skills are below par so the less I actually have to design these two places myself, the likely they will be better. :smallsmile:

On the subject of the ad hominem attack, remember that ad hominem simply means "at the man," so that an insult, whether used as an actual argument or simply gratuitously, still constitutes an ad hominem attack. As to whether the original poster actually uses argumentum ad hominem, I went back to the original post. I think it's not actually clear, since the post isn't particularly well written, whether the poster considers the ad hominem a part of his argument or simply a gratuituous insult. Whether the poster intended the ad hominem as an argument, or simply a gratuitous insult, it's still bad form, which I think is the original responder's actual point. :smallsmile:

For the record, I agree with the original poster's primary contention, that the rules suggest treating mithril full plate as medium armor for purposes of the Armor Proficiency (medium) feat.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-02-01, 08:56 AM
It has pregenerated soldiers of varying rank levels with complete stats and equipment in the back, but I don't think it has any fortresses completely built. That said, if you want to push it that extra martial mile, Heroes of Battle could jazz that fort up into something formiddable.

Maclav
2007-02-01, 09:05 AM
Well in some acounts knights in steel plate mail were able to jump on to their horses and turn sumersalts in full plate.

You mean like this:

http://www.mediumaevum.com/josh/Picture%20008.jpg

Person_Man
2007-02-01, 10:31 AM
Here is the Dread Commando (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20050407b&page=6). Heroes of Battle is a great book for DMs. Not very useful for PC's. A Marshal/Dread Commando with Motivate Dexterity is very useful for any party. Not a particularly uber PrC, but good.

Also, I've seen someone at a Ren-Fair swim in a lake wearing normal steel full plate armor. I was freakin amazed, but apparently plate armor is not nearly as restrictive as people think it is. So I imagine that Mithril armor would only be an inconvenience, not a hindrance.

clericwithnogod
2007-02-01, 10:59 AM
Does the book by any chance contain any pregenerated forts? I'm in the process of trying to develop a praire fort and a fortified port for the PCs to attempt to recapture from the enemy. I have some general ideas for what I'd like, but my spacio-mechanical skills are below par so the less I actually have to design these two places myself, the likely they will be better. :smallsmile:


It's been a while, but as I recall, the Slaver's series had a nice fortress in Secret of the Slaver's Stockade and The Assasin's Knot had a nice little castle in it as well. I believe they both had "where are they charts" based upon die rolls and/or time that placed significant NPCs and maybe guards. Just plug in your own NPCs and encounters and you're set... These were on the Wizard site for free at one point. But, they aren't there now. Still, it's not hard to find a copy in print form dirt cheap and the previously posted pdf's pop up a lot. Come to think of it, the Slaver's series may have had a map or two that might help with your fortified port as well. Keep on the Borderlands had a fort that might fit your needs as well...

EDIT: Thinking about it, the previously posted versions may have been in RTF or something with images seperate...it's been quite a while...

Ted_Stryker
2007-02-01, 02:05 PM
No, it was an Ad Hominem in addition to some actual points. He did say that anyone who disagreed with him was a "Rules Lawyer" (obviously intended as an insult) and brain damaged. That part was a falacy. The rest of the arguement is a different story.
My reading of that section of daggaz's post was basically that he was asking "what self-respecting rules lawyer would argue that mithral full plate is heavy armor?" I also inferred that he thought he was engaged in a bit of rules-lawyering himself.

CelestialStick
2007-02-01, 02:34 PM
It's been a while, but as I recall, the Slaver's series had a nice fortress in Secret of the Slaver's Stockade and The Assasin's Knot had a nice little castle in it as well. I believe they both had "where are they charts" based upon die rolls and/or time that placed significant NPCs and maybe guards. Just plug in your own NPCs and encounters and you're set... These were on the Wizard site for free at one point. But, they aren't there now. Still, it's not hard to find a copy in print form dirt cheap and the previously posted pdf's pop up a lot. Come to think of it, the Slaver's series may have had a map or two that might help with your fortified port as well. Keep on the Borderlands had a fort that might fit your needs as well...

EDIT: Thinking about it, the previously posted versions may have been in RTF or something with images seperate...it's been quite a while...

Thanks very much! :smallsmile: I found the Assassin's Knot, both text and maps still available on the Wizards site, and downloaded them. The keep isn't remotely what I'm seeking for either location. I was able to download a copy of the text of Secret of the Slavers Stockage, but I had to pay $4.95 to download a copy that included the maps. The stockade there might work for my praire fort, although it might be too small. I might be able to work with it or from it though.

I'm still looking for a version of The Keep on the Borderlands with the maps. I suspect though that another keep isn't going to provide me with what I want.

As for the Slaver's Series (there appear to be three more) having something I could use for a fortified port, can you provide a specific module. It's hard enough searching for the maps for one specific module, much less for three. Thanks! :smallsmile:

Renegade Paladin
2007-02-01, 04:27 PM
Does the book by any chance contain any pregenerated forts? I'm in the process of trying to develop a praire fort and a fortified port for the PCs to attempt to recapture from the enemy. I have some general ideas for what I'd like, but my spacio-mechanical skills are below par so the less I actually have to design these two places myself, the likely they will be better. :smallsmile:
If that's what you want, you'd do far, far better with the Stronghold Builder's Guidebook. It's 3.0, but the rules for buildings didn't change to my knowledge.

On the subject of the ad hominem attack, remember that ad hominem simply means "at the man," so that an insult, whether used as an actual argument or simply gratuitously, still constitutes an ad hominem attack. As to whether the original poster actually uses argumentum ad hominem, I went back to the original post. I think it's not actually clear, since the post isn't particularly well written, whether the poster considers the ad hominem a part of his argument or simply a gratuituous insult. Whether the poster intended the ad hominem as an argument, or simply a gratuitous insult, it's still bad form, which I think is the original responder's actual point. :smallsmile:
There is ad hominem used as a more impressive euphemism for insult, and then there is the ad hominem fallacy. By definition, something cannot be a fallacy unless it's part of an argument; he committed the former, but not the latter.

AtomicKitKat
2007-02-01, 10:26 PM
One of the problems I can see with allowing Barbarians to take it without Heavy Armour Proficiency is due to this:

Just because it's "considered" Medium Armour, in terms of lightness and some other things, doesn't make it any less complicated to wear. Think about this for a second. Wearing Light Armour is pretty much the same as pulling a jacket over your arms, or putting on a T-shirt. Medium Armour is a little more complicated, requiring perhaps a strap or two, maybe adjusting the pads. Heavy Armour is horrendously complex, putting it on, strapping into place, adjusting the padding, to say nothing of the greaves and gauntlets and such.

Hurlbut
2007-02-02, 03:48 AM
One of the problems I can see with allowing Barbarians to take it without Heavy Armour Proficiency is due to this:

Just because it's "considered" Medium Armour, in terms of lightness and some other things, doesn't make it any less complicated to wear. Think about this for a second. Wearing Light Armour is pretty much the same as pulling a jacket over your arms, or putting on a T-shirt. Medium Armour is a little more complicated, requiring perhaps a strap or two, maybe adjusting the pads. Heavy Armour is horrendously complex, putting it on, strapping into place, adjusting the padding, to say nothing of the greaves and gauntlets and such.As it have been stated several time in this thread, the FAQ SUPPORT the more open interperation that a Mithral Full Plate can be worn by a character with only a medium armor proficiency.

AtomicKitKat
2007-02-02, 06:29 AM
As it have been stated several time in this thread, the FAQ SUPPORT the more open interperation that a Mithral Full Plate can be worn by a character with only a medium armor proficiency.

And I acknowledge that they do, but it's patently ridiculous.

Jack Mann
2007-02-02, 06:37 AM
The proficiency isn't your ability to put it on. Any idiot can spend fifteen minutes learning which strap goes where. It's not that complicated. The proficiency comes from learning to move in it. Or else you could just have someone with the feat put the armor onto a non-proficient character to let them get by without penalties.

Matthew
2007-02-02, 06:45 AM
Of course, even that approach is not that logical. Is learning how to fight in Mail really that difficult? I didn't find wearing Mail much of a problem at all nor any other type of body armour I have been fortunate enough to get the opportunity to wear. Nor do I think Mail is all that likely to reduce how far I can move in six seconds, though it might effect my maximum speed... but that was just my impression.

Catharsis
2007-02-02, 06:51 AM
Just because it's "considered" Medium Armour, in terms of lightness and some other things, doesn't make it any less complicated to wear.
Mithral full plate might be just as complicated as regular full plate to don and remove, but it is not complicated to wearb. Wearing armor is a passive activity, it doesn't require concentration. You don't have to think about how the joints interlock and how many moving parts it has while wearing it. It interacts with your other activities solely by its degree of hindrance, which is represented by the weight class and the action check penalty in D&D. Thus, wearing mithral full plate feels just like wearing a regular breastplate.

If you want, you can argue that a Barbarian needs help from the Cleric to put on his MFP correctly in the mornings. But then, donning full plate is generally something much more easily done with helping hands (is it even possible alone?).

Soepvork
2007-02-02, 07:38 AM
Wait, Fighters gain useful abilities past level 4? I don't buy that...

JaronK

Fighters gain useful abilities past level 2? :smallwink:

JaronK
2007-02-02, 07:40 AM
Fighters gain useful abilities past level 2? :smallwink:

Touche.

JaronK

Person_Man
2007-02-02, 10:01 AM
I don't make Barbarians take Heavy Armor Prof to wear Mithril Full Plate. I think I'm supported by the rules on this, and Barbarians are a pretty under powered class anyway by the time they can afford it.

Thomas
2007-02-02, 10:10 AM
I don't make Barbarians take Heavy Armor Prof to wear Mithril Full Plate. I think I'm supported by the rules on this, and Barbarians are a pretty under powered class anyway by the time they can afford it.

You're supported by the armor table in Races of the Wild, and by the FAQ, anyway.

CelestialStick
2007-02-02, 11:06 AM
Mithral full plate [snip]

Heh. I just realized that we have all been spelling "mithirl" as it appears in Tolkein, rather than using the laughable "mithral" that Gygax used to get around Tolkein's copyright. :smallbiggrin:

Thomas
2007-02-02, 11:18 AM
What copyright? The word's not trademarked or specifically copyrighted, and is used as "mithril" in plenty of places. (Warcraft, Everquest, ADOM, Elder Scrolls...)

CelestialStick
2007-02-02, 11:52 AM
If that's what you want, you'd do far, far better with the Stronghold Builder's Guidebook. It's 3.0, but the rules for buildings didn't change to my knowledge.

Thanks for the suggestion. Alas I have the Stronghold Builder's Guidebook, and it doesn't have a pre-generated map that works for either of the two fortifications I need.:smallfrown:

CelestialStick
2007-02-02, 12:13 PM
What copyright? The word's not trademarked or specifically copyrighted, and is used as "mithril" in plenty of places. (Warcraft, Everquest, ADOM, Elder Scrolls...)

The word "mithril" first appeared in The Hobbit, published in 1937. You're right though, that unlike with the word "hobbit," Tolkein did not trademark the word "mithril." Gygax has hobbit in original D&D, but changed them to halflings when he published 1st Ed. I looked through the 1st ED PHB and DMG and didn't see mithril or mithral, so it's possible that mithral post-dates Gygax's control of TSR. I'll ask him. :smallsmile: