|
Spellcasting for bards and low level magus players should work with a mithral breastplate (remember the armor check penalty), since Brawlers can flurry in heavy armor, I think Brawling mithral brastplate can be an option. Not 100 % sure though.
Brawling armor has nothing to do with the brawler class, and instead refers to the brawling armor enchantment, which is limited to light armor only.
I'm also pretty sure it counts as the heavier armor for possible enchantment too. I don't think you can have a Brawling Mithral Breastplate, foe example.
And I'm pretty sure it counts as lighter armor for possible enchantments too. I think you can have a Brawling Mithral Breastplate, foe example. I feel this way because I see nothing in the Mithral description saying that it shouldn't be light for enchantments since it is a limit based on the type of armor which I feel clearly falls under the "other limitation" part. The only thing not changed is the proficiency needed.
Spellcasting for bards and low level magus players should work with a mithral breastplate (remember the armor check penalty), since Brawlers can flurry in heavy armor, I think Brawling mithral brastplate can be an option. Not 100 % sure though.Brawling armor has nothing to do with the brawler class, and instead refers to the brawling armor enchantment, which is limited to light armor only.
I don't think you're helping your case by referring to the brawling enchantment as "limited to light armor" when mithral armor counts as one category lighter for all "limitations."
|
I should also mention that the closest thing I've seen to an official word on the subject is Mark Seifter in the Ask Mark Seifter thread saying that he doesnt think it would work. Link
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mark was one of us until very recently so I am going to have to disagree with him on this.
Unless they changed the wording for mithral armor or put in special rules for certain abilities it means for all purposes except proficiency.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
My point of view is if it's not a valid enchantment for bracers of armor, it's not a valid enchantment for a medium armor made out of a special material.
I'm sorry but I found it funny when I read this and I'll rewrite it as I see it.
"My point of view is if it's not a valid enchantment for bracers of armor (which aren't light armor), it's not a valid enchantment for a medium armor made out of a special material (that makes the armor light)."
It's to me like saying, Well my Wizard can't cast that spell, so a witch archetype shouldn't be able to either. Like, they have nothing to do with each other. You can't put anything on bracers that are type of armor specific.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point of view is if it's not a valid enchantment for bracers of armor, it's not a valid enchantment for a medium armor made out of a special material.
Bracers of armor are not even real armor. I don't even see how that applies. There is no special connection between bracers of armor and light armor.
|
|
Bracer of armor are armor, and are light. A bracer is a synonym for vambrace, which is piecemeal armor for the arms. I know there is no rules connection between bracers and light armor, but Bracers are able to accept armor enhancements, and are the lightest of light armors because they are not encumbering at all. I know this is not RAW. This is personal opinion, nothing more.
That said, Mithral armor is still Medium for proficiency. It doesn't make sense that an enchantment that only works on light armor would work on armor that is only light for the purposes of penalties, but still requires medium proficiency.
Bracers of armor was ruled to not count as armor.
The only other instance when something calls for something specifically to be light armor besides proficiency that I can recall is arcane spell failure for classes like bard, summoner, and magus. General consensus (well I haven't found anything on the boards naysaying it) is that mithral chainshirt/breastplate/kikko counts as light armor for the ignoring ASF of those classes; so I'd see it working with brawling armor just fine.
|
|
Mark was one of us until very recently so I am going to have to disagree with him on this.
Unless they changed the wording for mithral armor or put in special rules for certain abilities it means for all purposes except proficiency.
I'm inclined to disagree as well. My point was merely that there's enough controversy that trying it in PFS is risky until we get a more definite statement.
|
|
Spellcasting for bards and low level magus players should work with a mithral breastplate (remember the armor check penalty), since Brawlers can flurry in heavy armor, I think Brawling mithral brastplate can be an option. Not 100 % sure though.Brawling armor has nothing to do with the brawler class, and instead refers to the brawling armor enchantment, which is limited to light armor only.
So... you are telling me, that an enhancement, that sounds almost exactly like the brawler class, works to improve unarmed strikes, and only works on light armor, the only armor a brawler is proficient with and was printed in the very same book... has nothing to do with the brawler class?
The are the only class that can properly use this aside from a single controversial monk archetype.
RAW, no there is no connection, but RAI... I would argue so.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would probably be fine ruling that a brawling mithral breastplate works in a home game, but there is definitely table variation on it in PFS. It's hazy enough that a GM might (and I have seen one do so) say it doesnt work.
Yeah, but to be honest there are a number of unclear topics where you might hit table variation, obviously this is one of them.
I would accept it as PFS GM, but I am certain that a couple of others will not, especially once they understand, that this armor enhancement improves damage.
Bracer of armor are armor, and are light. A bracer is a synonym for vambrace, which is piecemeal armor for the arms. I know there is no rules connection between bracers and light armor, but Bracers are able to accept armor enhancements, and are the lightest of light armors because they are not encumbering at all. I know this is not RAW. This is personal opinion, nothing more.
That said, Mithral armor is still Medium for proficiency. It doesn't make sense that an enchantment that only works on light armor would work on armor that is only light for the purposes of penalties, but still requires medium proficiency.
No they are not, a monk can't even use a haramaki or similar armor, and bracers of armor don't appear on any list of armors.
And regarding your second point, you would have not problem with an elven chain, but a mithral chainmail is a no go ? (The difference is 1000 G and it does not even require the proficiency).
Spellcasting for bards and low level magus players should work with a mithral breastplate (remember the armor check penalty), since Brawlers can flurry in heavy armor, I think Brawling mithral brastplate can be an option. Not 100 % sure though.Brawling armor has nothing to do with the brawler class, and instead refers to the brawling armor enchantment, which is limited to light armor only.So... you are telling me, that an enhancement, that sounds almost exactly like the brawler class, works to improve unarmed strikes, and only works on light armor, the only armor a brawler is proficient with and was printed in the very same book... has nothing to do with the brawler class?
The are the only class that can properly use this aside from a single controversial monk archetype.
RAW, no there is no connection, but RAI... I would argue so.
Last I checked Advanced Class Guide and Ultimate Equipment are not the same book. The unarmed fighter was already made though when this came out, as well as ninja and rogues. Because the scaling damage isn't as important as it might seem. A brawler archetype fighter at lv 3 does 1d3+3=4.5 from close combatant ability. a monk is 1d6=3.5. Then the monk goes to 1d8=4.5 and at lv7 the fighter goes to 1d3+4=5.5. So really this fighter is ahead of the curve compared to the monk. Also Feral combat training would make brawling work for those natural attacks. Brawling isn't tied at all to the brawler class, though they do work well together.
|
Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations.
I interpret this to mean that:
1) A Bard or low-level Magus can cast spells without incurring an ASF chance while wearing Mithral medium armor.
2) A Ranger or Slayer can use their chosen fighting style while wearing Mithral heavy armor.
3) Swashbucklers and Gunslingers can perform several of their deeds unhindered.
4) Rogues and Inquisitors can benefit from their Evasion (or Evasion-like) class features.
5) Hot weather penalties are not as severe.
6) A Sohei or Brawler can Flurry while wearing Mithral medium armor.
7) You can store a large-sized Companion in Mithral heavy armor enchanted with Hostelling.
8+ Probably some random examples I can't recall at the moment.
I interpret this to mean that you cannot:
1) Avoid the attention of NPCs that react to the type of armor you're wearing.
2) Enchant Mithral medium armor with Brawling.
Pay careful attention to the arguments for Hostelling and Brawling. They cannot both fall into the same category.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK for those that believe mithral breastplate doesn't apply for brawling enchantment, here's a question:
Does the Defender of the Society trait work for mithral breastplate?
I'd say Hostelling counts as lighter. As it is a limitation based on the class of armor. Do you have a reference that says that mithral heavy hostelling armor is able to store large?
as to your NPC you're still wearing a breastplate/fullplate, even though it's lighter. NPC's don't go, Oh he's wearing X Class of armor. They'd go, Oh he's wearing a (mithral if they know it) breastplate/fullplate (assuming they know armor). So here too I feel doesn't set a limitation that an armor bonus ability based off of the class of armor doesn't fall under the "other limitations" line.
|
|
OK for those that believe mithral breastplate doesn't apply for brawling enchantment, here's a question:
Does the Defender of the Society trait work for mithral breastplate?
That would work as well.
(knew I'd forget something)
You're still wearing medium armor.
OK for those that believe mithral breastplate doesn't apply for brawling enchantment, here's a question:
Does the Defender of the Society trait work for mithral breastplate?
I bet people that say no brawling yes hostelling would say yes it works. I say yes brawling no hostelling so no.
I do feel that it's either one or the other, it can't switch to what is most beneficial at the time.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK for those that believe mithral breastplate doesn't apply for brawling enchantment, here's a question:
Does the Defender of the Society trait work for mithral breastplate?
That would work as well.
(knew I'd forget something)
You're still wearing medium armor.
As is likely clear from Hrothdane's quote, I'm with you on this one personally, and agree on all the points in your longer post as well.
|
|
Last I checked Advanced Class Guide and Ultimate Equipment are not the same book. The unarmed fighter was already made though when this came out, as well as ninja and rogues. Because the scaling damage isn't as important as it might seem. A brawler archetype fighter at lv 3 does 1d3+3=4.5 from close combatant ability. a monk is 1d6=3.5. Then the monk goes to 1d8=4.5 and at lv7 the fighter goes to 1d3+4=5.5. So really this fighter is ahead of the curve compared to the monk. Also Feral combat training would make brawling work for those natural attacks. Brawling isn't tied at all to the brawler class, though they do work well together.Spellcasting for bards and low level magus players should work with a mithral breastplate (remember the armor check penalty), since Brawlers can flurry in heavy armor, I think Brawling mithral brastplate can be an option. Not 100 % sure though.Brawling armor has nothing to do with the brawler class, and instead refers to the brawling armor enchantment, which is limited to light armor only.So... you are telling me, that an enhancement, that sounds almost exactly like the brawler class, works to improve unarmed strikes, and only works on light armor, the only armor a brawler is proficient with and was printed in the very same book... has nothing to do with the brawler class?
The are the only class that can properly use this aside from a single controversial monk archetype.
RAW, no there is no connection, but RAI... I would argue so.
Fair enough, so let me change it to Brawler is the only class (excluding archetypes) that can wear light armor and is automatically good with unarmed strikes.
And that damn Feral Combat Training is... weird, I am really not sure if those damage boost are supposed to work with that feat, I would not be surprised, is just supposed to let you flurry, grapple and use stunning fist. But that is a topic for another FAQ request. And I will just stop arguing RAI.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose at the end of the day it boils down to a question of exactly what "other limitations" mithral effects. As it stands the rules text is pretty vague and open-ended (presumably to avoid the problem of needing to list out every single thing it effects).
Personally I would say that an enchantment which is limited to being used on light armor counts as a limitation. My personal interpretation of how the rules should be parsed is:
1: A Mithral Breastplate is still medium armor, and still requires Medium Armor Proficiency.
2: For purposes of movement and any other effect that is limited to light armor, a Mithral Breastplate is counted as light armor.
3: The Brawling enchantment is an ability that is limited to light armor.
4: Ergo, a Mithral Breastplate counts as light for purposes of the Brawling Enchantment.
The thing that I don't quite get about saying Mithral doesn't count for the Brawling enchantment is what makes it an exception to the general rule of being treated as one category lighter. What makes this enchantment different from all the other effects that aren't disputed as working?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bracer of armor are armor, and are light. A bracer is a synonym for vambrace, which is piecemeal armor for the arms. I know there is no rules connection between bracers and light armor, but Bracers are able to accept armor enhancements, and are the lightest of light armors because they are not encumbering at all. I know this is not RAW. This is personal opinion, nothing more.
That said, Mithral armor is still Medium for proficiency. It doesn't make sense that an enchantment that only works on light armor would work on armor that is only light for the purposes of penalties, but still requires medium proficiency.
Mithral medium armor can also be light. Not only is your idea not RAW, it has nothing to suggest it being RAI.
|
|
The thing that I don't quite get about saying Mithral doesn't count for the Brawling enchantment is what makes it an exception to the general rule of being treated as one category lighter. What makes this enchantment different from all the other effects that aren't disputed as working?
Defining the types of items that qualify to be enchanted doesn't strike me as a limitation.
Having class features that do not function when wearing heavier armor is a limitation.
If wearing regular armor would restrict your movement (and thus deny you something), while wearing Mithral armor would not (allowing you to keep something), then the "other limitations" clause applies.
(I hope that explains my reasoning. I've spent the last 10 minutes trying to figure out how to word it)
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
You treat mithral medium armor as light 'for movement and other limitations'. Brawling armor being only permitted on light armor is a 'limitation', as per the definition of the word. I can understand in a conceptual sense how someone would have a bone to pick, but it's pretty straightforward as written.
Our definitions of "limitations" are obviously different.
I used the OED...
"Definition of limitation in English:noun
1 (often limitations) A limiting rule or circumstance; a restriction."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is ALL LIMITATIONS EXCEPT PROFICIENCY UNCLEAR?
|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
How is ALL LIMITATIONS EXCEPT PROFICIENCY UNCLEAR?
Actually it does not say "all," only "other restrictions." Is that supposed to be read "all," "some," "many," "other restrictions as defined," etc? Often times, when rules are not clearly all inclusive, it is left for the GM to adjudicate the vagueness. How expansive "other limitations" goes is the issue and why there are sooo many ways to interpret the rule from "all other limitations" to "other limitations as indicated."
An FAQ would certainly be helpful. Even if you personally think the rule is clear, it would help if everyone clicked FAQ in the initial post. In your home games, you are free to interpret it however you want so how really cares if anyone agrees with your interpretation. However, in community games like PFS, it would be nice not to have to argue your interpretation with the GM, organizer, or players every time because you interpretation is different than theirs.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is ALL LIMITATIONS EXCEPT PROFICIENCY UNCLEAR?
Because people are mentally adding "..and in addition to proficiency certain other things still count armor as the original type such as...", despite it not being written that way.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually it does not say "all," only "other restrictions." Is that supposed to be read "all," "some," "many," "other restrictions as defined," etc?
'Other limitations' is by nature inclusive. If we go down that road where 'other' isn't inclusive, then we need an FAQ to tell us whether every single other possible limitation is intended to work with it or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually it does not say "all," only "other restrictions." Is that supposed to be read "all," "some," "many," "other restrictions as defined," etc?'Other limitations' is by nature inclusive. If we go down that road where 'other' isn't inclusive, then we need an FAQ to tell us whether every single other possible limitation is intended to work with it or not.
Indeed. I would assume it was written that way precisely because they wanted it to remain as open and broad as possible, to avoid any issues with needing to cover every single thing that armor category might limit (including things that hadn't been written yet).
Personally, I would assume the intention was to cover any limitations that aren't explicitly excluded (such as proficiency).
Actually it does not say "all," only "other restrictions." Is that supposed to be read "all," "some," "many," "other restrictions as defined," etc?'Other limitations' is by nature inclusive. If we go down that road where 'other' isn't inclusive, then we need an FAQ to tell us whether every single other possible limitation is intended to work with it or not.Indeed. I would assume it was written that way precisely because they wanted it to remain as open and broad as possible, to avoid any issues with needing to cover every single thing that armor category might limit (including things that hadn't been written yet).
Personally, I would assume the intention was to cover any limitations that aren't explicitly excluded (such as proficiency).
This is how I feel too. The armor is now a light breastplate or medium fullplate. But you still need proficiency as if it was heavier. Why would they say it's light for other limitations and give 1 exception and then have hidden exceptions underneath. (Yes I'm aware that if they make a ruling it could very well be this. But I view them as meaning what they say until they say otherwise.)
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the limitation for the enchantment is a limitation. ;)
I believe the idea is that enchantments include limits based on the armor category (light/medium/heavy).
So, any time you're reading through Ult. Equipment, looking for something to put on your armor, you go in and read the description.
Most armor enhancements may be applied to all armor categories
Some may only be applied to one or two of the categories.
Some people would parse this occurrence as: I see ability X requires this particular armor category. Thus it is limited. When I go to check my Mithral Armor to determine how if it affected by this limitation, I see that it counts as a category lighter for limitations. Thus, I resolve the question "can ability X apply to my armor" as though my armor were, in fact, one category smaller.
Some people parse this as: I see ability X requires this particular armor category. Thus it is limited. When I go to check my Mithral Armor to determine how if it affected by this limitation, I see that it counts as a category lighter for determining movement and other (read similar) limitations. Thus, I resolve the question "can ability X apply to my armor" as though my armor is the same size category as the proficiency required to wear it.
Is that more or less the sum of it?
-- Enhancements include limitations, thus some similar logic must be applied.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Enchantments are not limitations, so that logic does not apply.
No enhancements are not limitations themselves, but they can contain limitations. Since this limitation is calling out light armor.....
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
And I'm pretty sure it counts as lighter armor for possible enchantments too.
I don't think so. Here's why. Those 'limitations' they're talking about are the character's limitations. The character can't tumble in medium armor (but since this is mithral, he can). The character can't cast spells in medium armor without ACP (but because this is mithral, he can).
In the case of enchantment, the character's limitations aren't involved at all. The armor is still medium armor, it just limits a character as if it was light.
But since I could be wrong, I've clicked the FAQ button.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its pretty awesome how people add interpretation as to what a completely inclusive statement means... /facepalm
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I'm pretty sure it counts as lighter armor for possible enchantments too.I don't think so. Here's why. Those 'limitations' they're talking about are the character's limitations. The character can't tumble in medium armor (but since this is mithral, he can). The character can't cast spells in medium armor without ACP (but because this is mithral, he can).
In the case of enchantment, the character's limitations aren't involved at all. The armor is still medium armor, it just limits a character as if it was light.
But since I could be wrong, I've clicked the FAQ button.
Can you please point to the point in the description that says it's only lighter for character's limitations? The only thing I see is for movement and other restrictions. And movement is armor dependent, not a character limiting effect like casting or tumbling.
Also, it limits the character from adding brawling to it. That makes it a character limitation right? The character can't add brawling to medium armor (but because this is mithral, he can). ;)