PDA

View Full Version : Barbarians and Heavy Mithral Armor



Lord_Kimboat
2007-08-09, 11:00 PM
Hi all

I've got a bit of a pet peeve about Barbarians going around in Mithral Full Plate and saying "it's only medium armor" and still using all their abilities. It seems to me that they should at least need the Heavy Armor Proficiency Feat to use their abilities with heavy armor, even if it is made of Mithral!

So, am I totally out of line with this or not?

MeklorIlavator
2007-08-09, 11:09 PM
By RAW, mithral armor counts as 1 level of armor lower than normal, to a minimum of light. So you are perfectly fine in house ruling that it doesn't, but by RAW it does work that way.

Iku Rex
2007-08-09, 11:13 PM
The most recent ruling from WotC.

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).

Emperor Tippy
2007-08-09, 11:21 PM
The most recent ruling from WotC.

The FAQ isn't a ruling. It is a large collection of what are mostly houserules, even if most of the mare good houserules. They tend to avoid the RAW answer like the plague.

In this case though they happen to be correct, per RAW you only need medium armor proficiency to wear mithril full plate without penalty.

Iku Rex
2007-08-09, 11:49 PM
What's your special definition of "ruling" then? :smallconfused:

Jasdoif
2007-08-09, 11:52 PM
What's your special definition of "ruling" then? :smallconfused:Published rules and published errata.

Emperor Tippy
2007-08-09, 11:52 PM
What's your special definition of "ruling" then? :smallconfused:

The legit one. Errata or a clarification published in a later book.

The FAQ has been clearly shown to be RAW wrong on so many occasions that it is not a valid source if you are looking for a RAW opinion on anything.

Stephen_E
2007-08-09, 11:57 PM
The legit one. Errata or a clarification published in a later book.

The FAQ has been clearly shown to be RAW wrong on so many occasions that it is not a valid source if you are looking for a RAW opinion on anything.

You mean that the FAQ has contradicted the previous RAW.

Of course since Wotc uses the FAQ format to make changes to the RAW (as witness the Polymorth stuff) claiming this means the FAQ doesn't count is somewhat ridiculous.

Stephen

Emperor Tippy
2007-08-10, 12:08 AM
You mean that the FAQ has contradicted the previous RAW.

Of course since Wotc uses the FAQ format to make changes to the RAW (as witness the Polymorth stuff) claiming this means the FAQ doesn't count is somewhat ridiculous.

Stephen

Considering that WoTC themselves say that the FAQ is not RAW, defining it as all published D&D books in the current version of the game and published Errata, the FAQ is worthless as a source for if something is or is not RAW.

The FAQ has stated things numerous times that are in direct contradiction to the RAW and in the FAQ text they don't even imply that what they are saying is not RAW.

Damionte
2007-08-10, 12:11 AM
Tippy has it right. The FAQ is not RAW. It is usually a good example though of RAI. It all depends on what you are looking for. In this case you want a RAW reading.

The RAW in this case has been pointed out already. If you're the game master though and want to change it, then change it. Rule Zero trumps all. If you are aplayer then try to convince your DM. You won't be able to do it as a RAW discussion though as the RAW does not support yourpoint of view.

Stephen_E
2007-08-10, 12:12 AM
Considering that WoTC themselves say that the FAQ is not RAW, defining it as all published D&D books in the current version of the game and published Errata, the FAQ is worthless as a source for if something is or is not RAW.



Can you source the comment by Wotc?

Stephen

Iku Rex
2007-08-10, 12:34 AM
The legit one. Errata or a clarification published in a later book.Ruling (noun) : errata or clarification published in a later book.

I don't think that's quite word-for-word how that word is usually defined in the english language.

The FAQ has been clearly shown to be RAW wrong on so many occasions that it is not a valid source if you are looking for a RAW opinion on anything.So if I get this straight, the FAQ is wrong because the FAQ is wrong? If it hadn't been wrong, it wouldn't have been wrong. Hmm.

If I could point out RAW contradictions in the core rulebooks, would you reject their authority as well?

Jack Mann
2007-08-10, 01:04 AM
It comes down to the primary source rule. The primary source is always correct (from a pure rules standpoint). Errata can overrule the books as a primary source, but the FAQ does not. In effect, when the FAQ disagrees with the books, the books are automatically right, unless the errata says otherwise, because the books are the primary source.

The purpose of the FAQ isn't really to change rules, but simply to clarify the rules where they're unclear. Thus, they didn't give it the power to override the books the way errata can.

Zincorium
2007-08-10, 02:30 AM
The FAQ is one of those things that, while it isn't a concrete, this-is-how-you-must-do-things ruling, is what most people would consider common sense. You of course can ignore the clarifications and other answers it has, but you can also do that with RAW. Unless you are one of those people who uses the rules exactly and only as they are written, it's a good piece of advice.

Fact: WotC has made the FAQ available for download on it's website, has featured the sage advice column from which it is drawn on the home page for D&D itself. The guy who writes it is just as much a WotC employee and author as any of the people who have written in books.

Supposition: They intend you to take it and use it in your game. Seriously, the FAQ is supposed to be the definitive guide to RAI. That you don't count it as official errata, in which case it couldn't be wrong because it would supersede what it contradicts, is not official.

Let me just say one last thing: Tippy, to me you are some guy on the internet. So is the sage. The sage, however, is paid by WotC to do what he does. Presumably, if he was wrong or pointless, they'd simply stop paying him.

Emperor Tippy
2007-08-10, 02:47 AM
Let me just say one last thing: Tippy, to me you are some guy on the internet. So is the sage. The sage, however, is paid by WotC to do what he does. Presumably, if he was wrong or pointless, they'd simply stop paying him.

They did. Skip Williams was fired from the position because he was a joke. Every other one of his columns was outright wrong. The new guy seems better but that doesn't say much.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-08-10, 02:54 AM
It comes down to the primary source rule. The primary source is always correct (from a pure rules standpoint). Errata can overrule the books as a primary source, but the FAQ does not. In effect, when the FAQ disagrees with the books, the books are automatically right, unless the errata says otherwise, because the books are the primary source.

The purpose of the FAQ isn't really to change rules, but simply to clarify the rules where they're unclear. Thus, they didn't give it the power to override the books the way errata can.

The above is a very precise description and important for everyone to remember.

The FAQ provides clarifications and rules interpretations, sometimes even extended RAI answers that should have been included in the errata instead in the second-best of worlds.

If the FAQ directly contradicts the RAW, the RAW, as the primary source, reigns supreme.

The fact that the FAQ has been wrong on occasion does not invalidate all the times it is right. (One just have to be extra careful when reading it.)


As a rule of thumb; I acknowledge the insights of Skippy and Andy to the rules they in many cases have written themselves, when their answers coincide with my own interpretation of the RAW.
When they disagree with me I accept that even sages sometimes make mistakes. :smalltongue:

Lord_Kimboat
2007-08-10, 03:03 AM
Fair enough, it seems that the rules here do trump me. But what about balance? It does seem to me that a Barbarian who has no fear to rage because he's got an uber AC is a bit of a worry - balance wise.

What does Mithral Full Plate cost anyway? I saw something that it should add something like 9000gp to the price? Is this true as well? Because I tend to see an awful lot of Barbarians wearing the stuff.

Paragon Badger
2007-08-10, 03:32 AM
Martin Luther: It should be up to the players, and the DMs, to interpret the source material as it is!

Wizardacy: Nay! It is us, an age old institution, who determines how the rule books should be interpreted! The Wizards' ruling is final!

Henry VIII: The rules should be altered to fit the campaign as it is needed!

John Calvin: Wait... Where do I fit in all of this?

...Burning at the stake is 1d6 points of damage a round.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-08-10, 03:45 AM
Fair enough, it seems that the rules here do trump me. But what about balance? It does seem to me that a Barbarian who has no fear to rage because he's got an uber AC is a bit of a worry - balance wise.

What does Mithral Full Plate cost anyway? I saw something that it should add something like 9000gp to the price? Is this true as well? Because I tend to see an awful lot of Barbarians wearing the stuff.

It does add +9000 GP to the price of the armor, so cost alone goes a long way towards balancing it. (Source: Special materials - Mithral (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialMaterials.htm#mithral))

Jasdoif
2007-08-10, 03:52 AM
It does add +9000 GP to the price of the armor, so cost alone goes a long way towards balancing it. (Source: Special materials - Mithral (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialMaterials.htm#mithral))Indeed. Consider that mithral full plate and a +3 breastplate are both medium and have the same AC, Max Dex, ACP and arcane spell failure chance; but the breastplate costs 1,150gp less.

Ulzgoroth
2007-08-10, 03:53 AM
I'm pretty sure you could get this from the SRD, but yes mithril full plate does cost 10,500gp, and has to be custom-made or fitted to the new owner. (Ninja beholder!)

It's still well worth it (if you're willing to take the mobility hit of medium armor) at higher levels, since a mithril full plate +1 provides as much armor as a Breastplate +4, costs less, and is cheaper to upgrade.


...Burning at the stake is 1d6 points of damage a round.
Probably also choking on smoke for 1d6 non-lethal, after the first round. Maybe even before the fire damage starts.

Zincorium
2007-08-10, 04:00 AM
They did. Skip Williams was fired from the position because he was a joke. Every other one of his columns was outright wrong. The new guy seems better but that doesn't say much.

Considering the amount of oversight that they at least should have over the content of the column, that paints a rather negative portrait of WotC.

And while you may in fact be correct on the errance of the sage's columns, I haven't seen more than one or two errors, and you are being vague and obviously biased in your dismissal. That makes it really, really hard to agree with you.

Most of the opinions I have about D&D, such as vancian magic being inherently senseless and a bad basis for a game, would be considered wrong as they don't agree with RAW. Naturally, I'd rather read someone's honest opinions than a flat recap of what was already written.

And in the case of the FAQ, most of it would not exist if much of the rules weren't so utterly poor in phrasing. The example of the specific mithral armors in the DMG does support the FAQ answer.



Lastly, EVERYONE look at the mithril full plate of speed in the DMG. Or SRD.



Speed while wearing a suit of mithral full plate is 20 feet for Medium creatures, or 15 feet for Small. The armor has an arcane spell failure chance of 25%, a maximum Dexterity bonus of +3, and an armor check penalty of -3. It is considered medium armor and weighs 25 pounds.


Yes, RAW states that mithril full plate is, in fact, medium armor.

Why has no one pulled up this bit of text yet, as it's the only one that deals with the specific example?

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-08-10, 04:18 AM
Lastly, EVERYONE look at the mithril full plate of speed in the DMG. Or SRD.



Yes, RAW states that mithril full plate is, in fact, medium armor.

Why has no one pulled up this bit of text yet, as it's the only one that deals with the specific example?

Well this was already referenced by the FAQ and I did not see anyone in this thread actually disagreeing with the "ruling".

Tippy only seemed to disagree with the source, not the conclusion. (At least that is how I interpreted the post considering that he provided no counter arguments).

MrNexx
2007-08-10, 01:10 PM
Ad res, I personally dislike allowing heavier armor to be worn without an appropriate feat, even if it is made of mithril. There's more to wearing armor than its weight, and it derives a large portion of its protective ability and awkwardness from its shape, which isn't going to change much because you've made it out of titan... mithril.

....
2007-08-10, 01:19 PM
Indeed. Consider that mithral full plate and a +3 breastplate are both medium and have the same AC, Max Dex, ACP and arcane spell failure chance; but the breastplate costs 1,150gp less.

But whats scarier? A half-orc in a breastplate running at you, or a half-orc in a gleaming suit of armor covered in hammered representations of demons with a screaming lion's head for a helm running at you?

Fax Celestis
2007-08-10, 01:23 PM
But whats scarier? A half-orc in a breastplate running at you, or a half-orc in a gleaming suit of armor covered in hammered representations of demons with a screaming lion's head for a helm running at you?

And the reason the breastplate can't be similarly adorned is...?

Jasdoif
2007-08-10, 01:32 PM
But whats scarier? A half-orc in a breastplate running at you, or a half-orc in a gleaming suit of armor covered in hammered representations of demons with a screaming lion's head for a helm running at you?I don't think I follow the correlation here. Are you suggesting that a circumstance bonus on an Intimidate check is what that 1,150gp difference covers?


What I was getting at is that mithral full plate requires a hefty initial investment, it's not "free AC that allows better abilities" in terms of initial cost. Of course, it's more cost effective to add further enhancements to mithral full plate then to a +3 breastplate...but that's why it's an investment, and the same can be said about any full plate, mithral or not.

Ulzgoroth
2007-08-10, 01:42 PM
It does require a hefty initial investment. On the other hand, it becomes more cost-effective than the enhanced breastplate when your armor budget is a mere 1000 gp beyond the minimal threshold to be able to buy mithril full plate at all.

It's a bad buy when you first can barely afford it at 10500gp, and a great buy at 11500gp. Just skip over that window of weakness by scaring up another couple pounds of platinum when you first buy into it.

Morty
2007-08-10, 02:11 PM
But whats scarier? A half-orc in a breastplate running at you, or a half-orc in a gleaming suit of armor covered in hammered representations of demons with a screaming lion's head for a helm running at you?

Do be completely honest, I'd be too busy laughing at anyone wearing the second suit of armor you described to be afraid.