Large sized armor and special materials?

[Taenia]

I will suggest thinking about this from a balance point of view.

Is the larger character getting some greater benefit for the extra cost?

Is the tiny or smaller character getting some lesser benefit from the armor for the cost?

In each cast the answer is no. It is the same armor, the same benefit, the same effects. Should they pay more for the same, I don't think so.

For tiny and smaller, the benefit of the material doesn't change. Regardless of what it is made of it will give them half the AC bonus.

If it is mithral it weight less, then itgives the same reduction in ACP and the same increase in Max Dex. This is consistent regardless of size. A bigger or smaller character should not pay more or less for the exact same benefit.

[Nefreet]

I was going to point that out earlier as well, but you did a better job of explaining it =).

[DM_Blake]

Taenia wrote:

I will suggest thinking about this from a balance point of view.

Is the larger character getting some greater benefit for the extra cost?

Is the tiny or smaller character getting some lesser benefit from the armor for the cost?

In each cast the answer is no. It is the same armor, the same benefit, the same effects. Should they pay more for the same, I don't think so.

Already mentioned, but also from a balance point of view, larger creatures get so many other benefits that having to pay higher prices COULD be part of the balance. Or at least, it could be the way the devs looked at the big picture.

Or maybe not.

[Claxon]

I agree with the Tarrasque .

The rules are vague, and his way makes more sense.

While the large creature gains no additional benefit for the extra cost he must pay, he already has the benefits of being bigger. Most notably reach.

[Gauss]

Question for those who believe that the multiplier applies to all cost, do you also believe it applies to the Masterwork cost?

[Taenia]

So in a PFS scenario they had a huge mithral breastplate +1 on the chronicle and the cost for mithral was tripled. This seems to indicate in at least one published adventure the cost for mithral would be modified by the multiplier.

[Gauss]

Taenia, unfortunately, adventures have been wrong before (in many places) and are not necessarily indicative of the rules.

[Taenia]

I agree but I remembered it from a scenario and like to provide any information relevant to the subject.

[Kazaan]

Taenia wrote:

I will suggest thinking about this from a balance point of view.

Is the larger character getting some greater benefit for the extra cost?

Is the tiny or smaller character getting some lesser benefit from the armor for the cost?

In each cast the answer is no. It is the same armor, the same benefit, the same effects. Should they pay more for the same, I don't think so.

For tiny and smaller, the benefit of the material doesn't change. Regardless of what it is made of it will give them half the AC bonus.

If it is mithral it weight less, then itgives the same reduction in ACP and the same increase in Max Dex. This is consistent regardless of size. A bigger or smaller character should not pay more or less for the exact same benefit.

Large armor doesn't give any more AC than medium armor so, by your logic, why should you pay more for Large armor at all, mithral or otherwise? Because being large is a significant benefit in and of itself.

Gauss wrote:

Question for those who believe that the multiplier applies to all cost, do you also believe it applies to the Masterwork cost?

I compared the rules for masterwork vs the rules for mithral. Masterwork says:

PRD wrote:

A masterwork suit of armor or shield costs an extra 150 gp over and above the normal cost for that type of armor or shield.

While Mithral and other cost-by-type materials calls the extra cost an "Item Cost Modifier". When you make a piece of equipment from one of these materials, you are modifying the cost. Again, it is the same as when you modify your Strength modifier with some bonus. You wouldn't multiply your Strength modifier by 1.5 for a 2-h weapon and then add the bonus from Bull's Strength, would you? So why would you multiply the cost for a larger/smaller size and then add a modifier to that cost? Masterwork is apparently different because it isn't a modifier to cost. The difference would be kind of like a bonus to Strength vs Weapon Training bonus. You add the bonus to Strength first, then multiply by 1.5 for 2-h bonus, then add Weapon Training bonus.

[skunk3]

I have thought about this issue a lot and my ruling is that the special materials cost is tacked on at the end rather than being multiplied.

Why?

Because we have to think about the differences between size categories. I don't think that a large sized creature is necessarily 'better' than a tiny sized creature. They both get various modifiers and IMO it's pretty balanced, overall.

To me it makes no sense that a large set of mithral full plate should cost 4x the amount of a tiny set of mithral full plate. They both offer the same benefit and by insisting that special materials costs be doubled, it kinda unfairly punishes anyone playing a large+ sized character.

Obviously, a large set of mithral full plate would require far more mithral than a tiny set of mithral full plate. That much is a given. However, as someone already said, this isn't a game of real-world economics. Large sized characters still have to pay more no matter what, just not *drastically* more.

[avr]

skunk3 wrote:

I have thought about this issue a lot

Between this thread dying ~6 years ago and your post there was a FAQ which decided the matter - not the way you prefer though.

[ErichAD]

An FAQ that essentially says that most armor made with mithral, adamantine or singing steel, should be made tiny and given the fitting enchantment.

[avr]

I think that got the fitting enchantment banned from PFS as a side effect.

[Diego Rossi]

ErichAD wrote:

An FAQ that essentially says that most armor made with mithral, adamantine or singing steel, should be made tiny and given the fitting enchantment.

And what damage receives the guy using that armor when I cast Dispel magic on it and it stops functioning for a few rounds?

[vhok]

one of the only faq's my group completely ignores. not only is it a dumb way to do it but it even goes against most of the pre-built items that are of unusual size and made of special materials from books. horrible faq just horrible

[ErichAD]

Diego Rossi wrote:

ErichAD wrote:

An FAQ that essentially says that most armor made with mithral, adamantine or singing steel, should be made tiny and given the fitting enchantment.

And what damage receives the guy using that armor when I cast Dispel magic on it and it stops functioning for a few rounds?

There isn't a damage entry in dispel magic, and nothing is mentioned in the fitting enchantment either. Since the spell required for the enchantment is "resize item", I'd probably use the "resize item" spell's explanation of what happens if the spell ends while wearing the item.

"If the spell on a resized suit of armor ends while the armor is being worn, the armor falls off harmlessly."

The target's fancy armor falls off. Give your familiar a wand of Serren's Swift Girding so he can walk around in the fancy armor that will certainly fit him. And I guess also pop your ally's armor back on when this happens to your side.