|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're investing something like 5,000gp extra on the medium armour to make it's ACP 0 - that's quite an investment. 5,000gp can give you benefits equal to or greater than many other feats - Boots of Elvenkind are 2,5000 gp and give you +5 to acrobatics. There are many ways to make feats useless with gold, this is just one of them.
On top of this, the lowest ACP armour that's medium and that you can apply mithral to (hide clearly can't be made from mithral) is scale mail, which would still give you a -1 ACP with mithral, and it's heavier than light armour. It has a lower max dex bonus, and if you wanted to minimize that -1 ACP to 0, you'd either need to have armour training, or a trait, or something similar, so it's not easy to do what you're saying - a creature wearing medium armour with absolutely no penalty.
I can see the logic behind some sort of penalty if you're not proficient with an armour even if it has a 0 ACP, but it's a large investment for very little benefit, I don't really see why it would be an issue compared to many other imbalances.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your title is right, your text is wrong. -0 ACP is wearable by (almost) anyone at no penalty. This is not a problem.
Well the above have already explained how the rules work and why.
Personally, if I had a player try to do this I would say "Your companion is not familiar with wearing armor and doesn't let you put it on him". Animals are still animals and prefer to fight naturally.
Or just houserule that it doesn't work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah because armor was never put on animals ever in history right.
REALIZARMS!!!!
I can't put armor on my cat (unless I want to end up in the emergency room), ERGO you can't put armor on your animal companion!!!
|
My players all take the light armor proficiency for their ACs, if they didn't, I wouldn't let them wear armor. That's not screwing players, that's following the rules. (Warhorses with boarding are a different matter, for me at least)
Now if they wanted to buy mithral, I'd tell them before, or let them erase it and add the gold back.
Though I suppose, what the op is saying is certainly RAW
My players all take the light armor proficiency for their ACs, if they didn't, I wouldn't let them wear armor. That's not screwing players, that's following the rules.
What rules are you referring to?
Who exactly is getting the benefit of wearing mithral armour without light armour proficiency? Wizards and sorcerers still need to make ASF checks, druids still have issues with non-metal armour and monks don't want to wear armour at all.
Of course animals wear armor. But the ones that do are trained for it. IMHO, that training is represented by taking the proper feats.
Also, I hardly think this is screwing over a player unless I let them purchase the armor, tell them it doesn't work, and then force them to only get half price for selling it back. As soon as they tried to buy mithril barding we would have the conversation. I hardly think that's an unfair interpretation of the rules.
Also, the sarcasm and accusations are uncalled for. You can disagree with me without being so confrontational about it.
Who exactly is getting the benefit of wearing mithral armour without light armour proficiency? Wizards and sorcerers still need to make ASF checks, druids still have issues with non-metal armour and monks don't want to wear armour at all.
Mostly animal companions, once you feel too rich for MW studded leather. But also all the light-armor classes that would like a base +6 armor bonus (because medium armor made of mithril still requires medium armor proficiency).
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems like an odd place to house-rule in realism. "Yes, your tiger can wear a +1 chain shirt of mithral, the metal almost as light as silk, and it's easy to get one that fits him perfectly. But he first has to learn the art of chain-shirt wearing, because I say so."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mostly animal companions, once you feel too rich for MW studded leather. But also all the light-armor classes that would like a base +6 armor bonus (because medium armor made of mithril still requires medium armor proficiency).
Even a mithral breastplate is only +2 AC than a chain shirt, has a -1 ACP (i.e. -1 to attacks and all movement skills) and 1 lower max Dex. If rogues and bards want to disadvantage themselves that way for very little benefit, that's entirely up to them.
Besides, if "you" are good with animals wearing leather barding without feats, why not mithral plate barding too?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't a problem, just let the player do it. It already costs a good deal of money for a low level character, it's really not a problem. Yes, animal companions at low levels can have a really good AC between natural armor and regular armor, but the rules have all you need to know.
If you're not proficient with armor you take the ACP to attack rolls as well as the normal skill checks, etc. If you reduce the ACP to a value of 0, congratulations you take a -0 to all attacks rolls, relevant skills, etc.
It's not cheating, it's clearly laid out in the rules.
Hell you guys do realize that in PFS it was exceptionally common for rogues to start with the Armor Expert trait and to buy a mithral breastplate so that they could use decent armor without the feat. It's still legal, despite PFS being the cause of "much nerfings and butthurt". If PFS doesn't consider it a problem, it's probably not much of a problem.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Keep your houserules off a rules discussion. 0 ACP means that you can use the armor without any problem.
0 ACP means that you can use the armor without any problem.
(Exceptions include: Arcane Spell Failure, Monk bonuses.)
ACP != ASF, and the Monk have specific rules to armor use.
I really don't see any question here... So I'm flagging to be moved to General Discussion.
My players all take the light armor proficiency for their ACs, if they didn't, I wouldn't let them wear armor. That's not screwing players, that's following the rules. (Warhorses with boarding are a different matter, for me at least)
Now if they wanted to buy mithral, I'd tell them before, or let them erase it and add the gold back.
Though I suppose, what the op is saying is certainly RAW
Your second statement (which is correct) disagrees with your first statement.
The rules make it clear that yes, if there was a metal medium armor with a -3 ACP and you made it of miteral, it would have a 0 ACP. The rules even explicitly allow for an ACP of 0.
There is no rule that I can find prohibiting a character from putting this on their animal companion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well either way the actual rules for this are very clear. An ACP of zero means you basically suffer no penalties beyond possibly movespeed and possible arcane spell failure chance. Mithril is a very nice material.
My players all take the light armor proficiency for their ACs, if they didn't, I wouldn't let them wear armor. That's not screwing players, that's following the rules. (Warhorses with boarding are a different matter, for me at least)
Now if they wanted to buy mithral, I'd tell them before, or let them erase it and add the gold back.
Though I suppose, what the op is saying is certainly RAW
What? That's one of the most ridiculous rulings I've ever heard of. You won't let something wear armor because it doesn't have the proficiency feat? You should apply that ruling to all creatures instead of showing favoritism about it. If you're going to go like that, then what would you rule when a person with Light Armor Proficiency wants to wear Mithril Breastplate? If the answer is anything other than "Show me some Medium Armor Proficiency feats, then you can wear it," then I'd call shenanigans for this ruling you're proposing.
Horses don't get a green card; they are just as much animals as any cats, dogs, bears, etc. There isn't really much of a requirement to wear armor other than being a willing creature. If dogs who are trained let you put little jackets on them when it's cold, I'm sure you can scrounge the reasoning that a trained animal (which I'm certain Animal Companaions are; if not, then it's not really a Companion,) would be willing to let its master equip it with armor.
Quite frankly, if an Animal Companion is afraid to let you put armor on it, but is still "stupid" enough to venture with you and basically serve as cannon fodder (no offense, but ACs aren't really that strong or versatile to begin with), then I'd question its rational train of thought. (Animals aren't smart, but they have better instincts than that.)
(Animals aren't smart, but they have better instincts than that.)
Hey! My War Elk (Welk™) has a decent int because we're using the automatic bonus progression rules and decided it applied to animal companions as well. So he is actually decently intelligent, you know, for an animal.
You suffer at least 3 other penalties for light armors with 0 checks:
1) I believe in every instance, at least some spell failure %? Or most, at least, it's been awhile since trying to optimize that on a character.
4) It tells all the enemy archers that this fluffy animal is a target.
1) My wizard with a haramaki and a mithral buckler disagrees. (Silken ceremonial armor is an also an option for armor without spell failure, but it weighs more than the haramaki)
4) A roc, tyger, and similar ACs should be considered a target on sight despite they wear armor or not. You can convince me a parrat is harmless, a horse-sized bird with a beak and claws capable of tearing flesh, not so much.
EDIT: I see you only considered this as drawbacks, not judging if they´re worthwile or not. Just consider my opinion as a difference if those can be considered a drawback.
I see lots of real people putting their animals in sweaters or even Halloween costumes. It's not like your dog has to be trained to be dressed like a pirate. A mithral armor wouldn't be much different than one of those things.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah because armor was never put on animals ever in history right.REALIZARMS!!!!
I can't put armor on my cat (unless I want to end up in the emergency room), ERGO you can't put armor on your animal companion!!!
Ironic as it come from someone that said this in another thread 5 hours before this post:
The problem is, you can be the picture of smiling politeness, and still be a prick. The moderators only moderate bad language, not bad behaviour.
For the thrifty, there's also darkleaf leather lamellar, which is only 810gp. For the discerning wizard, darkleaf quilted armor provides extra protection against arrows, bolts, and other "small ranged piercing weapons" without the pain of spell failure or ACP, albeit with a painful 7.5 lbs weight for Medium creatures.
About the mithral breastplate , it weights 15 lbs , the text for armor penalty says:
"Any armor heavier than leather,"
Leather armor weights 15 lbs.
I know that there should be a penalty and that you should use tricks like the armor expert trait to reduce it to 0 , but what is ruling behind it? It is anything more than because it is fluff text?
I find it interesting that some would require Light Armour Proficiency to wear Medium Mithril armour, since the material is very specific and mentions it still require the original rate of Armour Proficiency.
Now, with 0 ACP this isn't a problem anyway. Just like a plain set of clothes or just nothing at all an armour with ACP of 0 doesn't restrict most creatures in any way. And if that is a problem, a wand of Mage Armour is cheaper then most ACP 0 armours anyway and will probably last long enough.
|
|
Well, even a 0 ACP haramaki is enough to remove a monk's unarmored AC bonus or remove spellcasting from a druid, so there is a difference between 0 acp armor and clothes.
But if you don't have class abilities that care about that, there is no difference between wearing 0 ACP armor and clothes from a mechanical standpoint. Armor is not nearly as restrictive as people like to believe.
A reasonable houserule is if you are not proficient in the armor, you will have a minimum ACP of 1 for light armor, 2 for medium armor, or 3 for heavy armor, because you don't know how to strap it properly.
Yeah because armor was never put on animals ever in history right.REALIZARMS!!!!
I can't put armor on my cat (unless I want to end up in the emergency room), ERGO you can't put armor on your animal companion!!!
Ironic as it come from someone that said this in another thread 5 hours before this post:
The problem is, you can be the picture of smiling politeness, and still be a prick. The moderators only moderate bad language, not bad behaviour.
Well, I'd hardly say I've been polite in my replies. And I still think dishonest obstinacy is worse for the community than a few swearwords.
A reasonable houserule is if you are not proficient in the armor, you will have a minimum ACP of 1 for light armor, 2 for medium armor, or 3 for heavy armor, because you don't know how to strap it properly.
Why punish martials even more with such stupid houserule? You want to have Magic Armor Proficiency to learn how to use a Mage Armor?
I've never seen a martial wearing armor they don't have the proficiency for anyway.
|
|
A reasonable houserule is if you are not proficient in the armor, you will have a minimum ACP of 1 for light armor, 2 for medium armor, or 3 for heavy armor, because you don't know how to strap it properly.Why punish martials even more with such stupid houserule? You want to have Magic Armor Proficiency to learn how to use a Mage Armor?
No because mage armor isn't armor. As someone who owns armor and has fought in it, I can tell you that if your armor isn't strapped properly, it's going block your movement.
And it's not going to hurt martials. Martial Characters will have proficiency via class features. Who it would hurt are arcane casters trying to gain a little bit of AC, Kensai who thematically shouldn't be wearing it anyway, and animal companions.
I wouldn't actually use that houserule, but it is reasonable and somewhat realistic.
A reasonable houserule is if you are not proficient in the armor, you will have a minimum ACP of 1 for light armor, 2 for medium armor, or 3 for heavy armor, because you don't know how to strap it properly.Why punish martials even more with such stupid houserule? You want to have Magic Armor Proficiency to learn how to use a Mage Armor?No because mage armor isn't armor. As someone who owns armor and has fought in it, I can tell you that if your armor isn't strapped properly, it's going block your movement.
And it's not going to hurt martials. Martial Characters will have proficiency via class features. Who it would hurt are arcane casters trying to gain a little bit of AC, Kensai who thematically shouldn't be wearing it anyway, and animal companions.
I wouldn't actually use that houserule, but it is reasonable and somewhat realistic.
Wouldnt having a martial in the party , which in this case would know how to strap it , cover for this rule?
You just ask the other guy a handy for 5 mins for the finishing touches and you are golden anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are already rules for being poorly strapped into armor - "The armor check penalty and armor bonus for hastily donned armor are each 1 point worse than normal". They do not depend on proficiency.
I fail to see an issue in the rules here.
Yes, you can negate the effects of improficiency with armor by getting suitably light armor. Remember, for the purposes of the rules, the average person has an attack bonus of +0 to +1, never advancing past a +3, and is not proficient with any armor. Ask yourself what level of armor would inhibit you significantly in a fight. I don't believe most people would be severely inhibited by:
- Haramaki: basically an oversized, heavy cummerbund.
- Quilted Cloth/padded: less significant than winter clothing
- Silken Ceremonial: think a suit in weight, but much more flexible, yes?
- Lamellar Cuirass/Leather: toughened bits of animal skin,
strategically placed specifically not to interfere with my movement.
As for mithral, it's light enough (and well crafted enough) that it would make sense that there's a possibility of wearing it without penalty.
As for Companions and Familiars: both experience a much closer connection with their masters than a normal 'pet'. It'd make sense that they are more compliant to donning armor than a normal animal would be.
The only issue I have with the rules as they are is that a wizard/sorcerer of medium level can use a Haramaki to wear their 'bracers of armor' in a non-bracers slot with a +1 bonus. But even that isn't game breaking.
I've never seen a martial wearing armor they don't have the proficiency for anyway.Really? I've seen bunches with only Light Armor Prof (mostly rogues) who have Armor Expert and wear a mithril breastplate.
By martial I think they are referring to paladin/fighter/cavalier. Those are typically the front-liners, classes whose abilities pretty much only revolve around combat.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... I am aware that the void in the Rules to this game are rather broken and exploited by players. So let me reaffirm these things that Paizo failed to express in the rules......
I don't think by simply having a 0 ACP players can give the excuse in saying the PAIZO broken rules say if it's a 0 ACP, I don't suffer any negatives to wearing the armour so I can use it and I don't need to take these light armour/med and Heavy armour feats!
There's a whole subforum that exists specifically for threads like this that say "I know the rules say X, but I prefer to do Y". It's the Suggestions/Houserules/Homebrew forum, not the Rules Questions forum.
And even then, "I prefer to do XYZ instead of what the rules say" is much better than "You're intended to do XYZ instead of what the rules say and if you follow the rules then you either can't understand my logic or you're deliberately exploiting broken rules".
This is the Rules Questions forum; its purpose is for asking and answering questions about how the published rules work, not for just announcing to everyone how you think the game was meant to be played instead.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am a firm believer that Paizo put these armour feats (light,Med,Heavy) into the game for a reason! Remember there is always a reason for these FEATS!
Here is my logic and I don't expect all of you to understand it.
Paizo didn't put the armor feats in the game. WotC did.
We all understand your logic. We don't agree that your premises are valid.