[3.5] Mithral or Adamantine, which would you choose?

[Flail_master]

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?

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

just a little thing i was thinking about earlier

[Icewraith]

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]

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]

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

[Gavinfoxx]

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]

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?

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

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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 )

Both have their good point

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

[mabriss lethe]

"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]

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.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Random idea; why not give Mithral weapons the properties currently given to Feycraft weapons?

[iDM]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 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]

Unless it's a katana.

*shot*

I keed, I keed!

Aah! Stop disputing my position with perfectly valid points!

I keed, I keed.

[2xMachina]

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]

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

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]

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]

i'd choose dragon-craft Dragonhide armour...

[FelixG]

Adamantine, because its awesome...and you could bodyslam a wall apart :P

[panaikhan]

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]

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.

[Snake-Aes]

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 Opener® is for giving yourself something to hold to the ship's deck as you fail your balance check and falls to your certain doom.