|
RAW I'd say add it and multiply by the cost multiplier. But that seems very expensive since Mithral is often priced by weight (for non-armor). If I were to GM, I'd be inclined to allow you to multiply it by the weight multiplier, not the cost multiplier.
LARGE HORSE MEDIUM MITHRAL BARDING x4 cost, x2 weight
(ignoring cost of the armor itself)
RAW = +4000 x 4 cost = +16,000 gp
ME = +4000 x 2 weight = +8,000 gp
The problem with the latter is that it skews the small armors, since they weigh x1/2, so using my system, mithral medium armor for a small Halfling would only cost +2000 gp. Makes sense to me, but goes against the notion that small and medium armors cost the same.
|
|
RAW the mithral cost for a Medium type armour is +4,000 gp.
Thus a large sized, medium type, non-humanoid armour is +4000 gp.
Your DM might disagree and houserule it though.
And there you go, you have two completely different interpretations of what RAW is. Only I am not going to denigrate your GM in making his or her ruling on the matter. If it can be interpreted in different ways and the developers haven't clarified it, then any reasonable interpretation of RAW by your GM is RAW. So go ask. If you're the GM, whatever you decide is fine.
Pretty sure Ultimate Equipment and a handful of other sources have already established precedent for this.
I may be mistaken, but I think I recall the additional component cost remaining the same, regardless of size, as unintuitive as that may sound.
|
|
Pretty sure Ultimate Equipment and a handful of other sources have already established precedent for this.
I may be mistaken, but I think I recall the additional component cost remaining the same, regardless of size, as unintuitive as that may sound.
You could very well be right (as I won't claim to know the one and true answer, just am willing to express my opinion), but I'd like to see something that explains how the rule works. I can't find anything in Ultimate Equipment or anywhere else that definitively establishes that. I also haven't seen any examples in the rulebooks as all the specific armors are priced for small/medium characters.
It's possible there may be "examples" in scenarios where the price of a creature's armor (e.g. a Storm Giant) can be used to infer the rule, BUT we've seen lots of situations where these examples are themselves mistakes. After all, many scenarios are done by freelancers, and while the developers look them over, they often don't catch everything. BTW, I don't know of any examples one way or the other in scenarios as I haven't looked (though they probably are there).
In the end, if its unclear, then the GM decides what is RAW until clarity is attained, and I won't dis the GM for any reasonable interpretation.
|
|
I did some digging around and the closest I have come to finding something is this:
"Armor for Unusual Creatures: The cost of armor for non-humanoid creatures, as well as for creatures who are neither Small nor Medium, varies. The cost of the masterwork quality and any magical enhancement remains the same."
Unfortunately, it only covers masterwork quality and magical enhancement, and does not specifically address special materials one way or the other. So tantalizingly close to resolving the issue...
I'll look again later, but I don't hold out too much hope.
|
I've never seen an official answer to this question, and there are three possible answers:
MOST EXPENSIVE GOING UP/LEAST EXPENSIVE GOING DOWN:
Figure out the cost for medium-sized Mithral armor and multiply up for large, or down for tiny.
Large Breastplate, (200+4000)x2=8400
Tiny Breastplate, (200+4000)x.5=2100
LEAST EXPENSIVE GOING UP/MOST EXPENSIVE GOING DOWN:
Apply Mithral's cost modifier after figuring out the cost of the armor itself.
Large Breastplate, (200x2)+4000=4400
Tiny Breastplate, (200x.5)+4000=4100
WEIRDEST INTERPRETATION I'VE SEEN:
Since masterwork costs aren't multiplied, and Mithral is automatically masterwork, you have to subtract 150gp from the cost of adding Mithral before you multiply for size.
Large Breastplate, ((200+3850)x2)+150=8250
Tiny Breastplate, ((200+3850)x.5)+150=2175
This is the problem with special materials that aren't based off of weight.
The armor for unusual creatures cost multiplier applies to CRB table 6-6. Special Material costs are not part of that table and thus are not multiplied.
Armor for Unusual Creatures
Armor and shields for unusually big creatures, unusually little creatures, and nonhumanoid creatures (such as horses) have different costs and weights from those given on Table 6–6. Refer to the appropriate line on Table 6–8 and apply the multipliers to cost and weight for the armor type in question.
Ultimate Equipment repeats this although the table numbers are different.
|
|
The armor for unusual creatures cost multiplier applies to CRB table 6-6. Special Material costs are not part of that table and thus are not multiplied.
Ultimate Equipment repeats this although the table numbers are different.Armor for Unusual Creatures
Armor and shields for unusually big creatures, unusually little creatures, and nonhumanoid creatures (such as horses) have different costs and weights from those given on Table 6–6. Refer to the appropriate line on Table 6–8 and apply the multipliers to cost and weight for the armor type in question.
This is the kind of thing I like. Find the language in the rules, or in the FAQ, or even from a developer.
I don't consider Gauss' find to be definitive as it can still be interpreted differently by two reasonable people.
BUT, I think it's the best we have (or are going to get) and is somewhat indicative that RAW is most likely that the special material cost is a flat add-on after you figure out the armor's cost without the special material. I personally shall henceforth do my armor cost calculations accordingly, but I still wouldn't fault a GM for deciding that RAW is the other way.