Mithral - Is it too good?

[Diction]

Matthew Morris wrote:

I also like the idea of making one handed mithral weapons finessable. Makes it a choice for the finesse fighter.

I am also a fan of this idea, though I worry that people that favor TWF will petition to have mithral 1-handed weapons count as light weapons in order to receive lesser penalties (unless that is already the norm, in which case I suggest ignoring my statement and pretending it didn't happen as I am both for and against the idea).

[Jason Bulmahn]

Diction wrote:

Matthew Morris wrote:

I also like the idea of making one handed mithral weapons finessable. Makes it a choice for the finesse fighter.

I am also a fan of this idea, though I worry that people that favor TWF will petition to have mithral 1-handed weapons count as light weapons in order to receive lesser penalties (unless that is already the norm, in which case I suggest ignoring my statement and pretending it didn't happen as I am both for and against the idea).

As interesting as this is... I think I am going to avoid this sort of addition. I am not sure I want to be the guy responsible for the swashbuckler using a greatsword... or a pair of longswords.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

[Krome]

Besides weight alone, one must consider encumberance, and training. No matter how you cut it Greatswords are unwieldy and bulky, regardless of actual weight. So, I think going all Swashbuckler with Greatswords is a bit much...

HOWEVER

It sure is a cool idea and would LOOK awesome... not opposed to a feat chain that allows it... ok not realistic so neither is a fireball... sometimes you just have to go with the COOLness of it.

[Kevin Mack]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

D - Come to your house and rip up all character sheets of PCs that, in my supreme opinion, are abusing mithral, replacing them with 1st level commoners built using the standard array (10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 11).

I am thinking that B is the way to go.. although D sounds like fun, I just do not have the time. :-)

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

For a small fee I could carry out D for you :-)

[lastknightleft]

my vote is B I want the full benefit for people who can get mithril full plate and wear it. I just don't want it opening up avenues for the classes that aren't supposed to be wearing it to suddenly be wearing it.

[Brandon Gillespie]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

B - Make it so that the armor counts as one class lighter in all regards, except for proficiency.

I could go with option B. That being said I think that alchemical silver should stay as a less expensive and inferior alternative. Alternatively you could leave the Silver/DR quality out and grant Mithril weapons the ability to be used with Weapon finesse "as if they were light weapons" since they are so light. This would give the mithril weapons some additional benefit to justify thier cost and still avois the greatsword/longsword swashbucklers!

I also wouldn't mind cold iron armor giving some sort of defense bonus against spells or magic since I imagine you would still have to pay 2X the cost of steel, not to mention 2000 gp in addition to enchantment costs. Maybe something like you can add the armor's magical enhancement bonus to saves vs. spells and spell-like abilities?

Fergie wrote:

Yes these things make sense, but do we really need to make it harder for Rogues, Rangers, Barbarians, Bards, etc. to get a slightly better AC?

If you are going to make these changes, the lighter armor builds should get thrown a little bone.

I agree with you on this one. Think about this, you have a 1st level ranger in studded leather with a Dex of 17 and you have a 20th level ranger in mw. studded leather with a dex of 17. Other equipment aside, both characters have an AC of 16. Clearly the 20th level ranger should be much more effective at defending himself from kobolds than a 1st level ranger! I think that there should be some mechanic other than armor to help protect these sorts of characters.Maybe something based on BAB that ties into AC for martial characters? This is just my 2 cents though.

[Jason Nelson]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

So, a little bit of expansion on these ideas.

1. Mithral weapons - I am all for this because of the lore behind mithral as True Silver. I agree that not all materials need to be good as weapons and armor, but this is one case where it should be both.

2. Mithral armor - There are a couple roads I can take with this... listed from least nerf, to most nerf.

A - Leave it the way it is...
B - Make it so that the armor counts as one class lighter in all regards, except for proficiency.
C - Remove the one class lighter bit entirely.
D - Come to your house and rip up all character sheets of PCs that, in my supreme opinion, are abusing mithral, replacing them with 1st level commoners built using the standard array (10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 11).

I am thinking that B is the way to go.. although D sounds like fun, I just do not have the time. :-)

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I'd vote C.

[Mark Moreland]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

I am thinking that B is the way to go.. although D sounds like fun, I just do not have the time. :-

I agree that B is the best option. C seems too extreme and something needs to change, so A is out. And D, well, have fun with that.

[anthony Valente]

Hmmm... option D is backwards compatible...

[JoelF847]

I'd vote for C also. Mithril full plate still gives you the addition of +2 to AC (if you have the dex for it, which at high levels shouldn't be too hard).

[anthony Valente]

I think I like C for keeping the rules simple, but B seems more logical since mithral is so light.

[Disciple of Sakura]

I'm at a loss as to how B really helps rogues, rangers, or bards more so than C... I suppose it's the bizarre fascination people have with making mithral chainmail or breastplate, neither of which is really worth its cost compared to a mithral chainshirt, which will give you the same full AC bonus and give you more of the DEX bonus to AC, which is something all three classes should probably focus on a bit.

[Gray]

I like option B

[Myrin Greasebeard]

I think you have a very good point. I suppose I never had that thought. But to get the DR you would have to know how to move in heavy armor. They are both really expensive, but one seems much more worthy. Why is adamantine heavy? Could it not just be a light more durable metal as well. Captain America had a shield that he could throw all day. lol. Okay a little nerdy there. The two metals don't seem equal. One is more useful than the others.

Perhaps it can be treated as medium in regards to penalties but still be only as function in regards to movement as the armor that it is. On that note a person would have to be able to use the heavy armor to be effective. In order to gain the benefits of the metal you have to know how to use the bulky armor. If a barbarian wants to wear it he would need the feat, but once he had the feat he could use it as medium armor.

[Daron Farina]

C on principle, but I can definitely live with B. Option D would probably result in a bonfire in my yard.

Though, I would like to see mithril weapons do something interesting. It may be a bit powerful, but how about increasing crit range by 1? So far the only thing weapon material does for us is bypass DR, and that isn't even very useful anymore.

[Neithan]

I kinda like the idea of not reducing armor type, but possibly improving movement speed by one category.

[Abraham spalding]

B gets my vote, for what that matters. It's how I've been house ruling it every sense 3.0 mithril has been around anyways.

Full plate is full plate no matter how easy it is to move in.

[kyrt-ryder]

Honestly I don't see what the big issue is. Mithral armor seems to be a fairly modest part of the game, and a big part.

The way I see it, the different armors aren't grouped by the way they are worn/used. If you did, the leathers would be together (and hide with them most likely), the chain armors would be together, and the plate armor would be together. Simple fact is, the way the game is set up right now, characters aren't trained in using a type of armor, they simply are trained in how to function with a certain weight-class of armor.

So could somebody please explain to me why Rogues, Rangers, and Barbarians will suddenly need to dip or burn a feat (most likely dip into fighter to pick up a free feat and the proficiency instead) to use their favored Mithral breastplate? I thought we were trying to reduce dipping with Pathfinder, not promote it.

[Abraham spalding]

you won't need to dip to get it: you can always spend a feat. Depends on how much it means to you.

[kyrt-ryder]

I did say in my post that they had the choice between dipping and spending a feat. I just stated that in most cases they would make the dip, to get the benefits they want AND gain an extra feat ontop of it. Its such a huge benefit that unless the DM says no (or the player has a very strong conscious regarding their character's personality and what sort of training said character would involve themselves in) then 98 times out of 100 its going to be a fighter dip (or perhaps a 2 level paladin dip)

[seekerofshadowlight]

you can always say no to dipping ya know

[kyrt-ryder]

That really wasn't the main point of my post lol. My question, rather, was why do we need to make Mithral armors not count as a lower size for proficiency purpose? Also, in that post I explained a point regarding how there are multiple "types" of armor within a weight category, and how in cases a "type" spreads across more than one category. Just a little counter-argument for people making the point regarding what characters have been trained in

[seekerofshadowlight]

myself I would not let it count as a lighter type. It ways less but it is still bulky and wears just the same as if it was steel or iron.

[Roman]

I favor option B.

[kyrt-ryder]

Yeah, about that... have you seen how a custom fit(masterworked and custom-crafted for the wearer or magic and thus resizing) breastplate wears? It actually tends to be less restrictive than the chain shirt (or some leather armor's I'd wager, which probably wouldn't be as flexible as we believe them to be, stiffening in the joints and such.)

[TorctheOrc]

I heartily endorse the aforementioned options as follows:

1 - Yes! Mithril is Truesilver after all.

2B - Let's not nerf mithril armor too much. If we must(2C), then, at the very least, we should preserve elven chain as a special exception, as was the case back in the day.

Cold Iron Armor with a bonus versus magic?!? Yes! For the win. And, btw, it makes you look FABULOUS!!!

TtO

[Kalyth]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

So, a little bit of expansion on these ideas.

1. Mithral weapons - I am all for this because of the lore behind mithral as True Silver. I agree that not all materials need to be good as weapons and armor, but this is one case where it should be both.

2. Mithral armor - There are a couple roads I can take with this... listed from least nerf, to most nerf.

A - Leave it the way it is...
B - Make it so that the armor counts as one class lighter in all regards, except for proficiency.
C - Remove the one class lighter bit entirely.
D - Come to your house and rip up all character sheets of PCs that, in my supreme opinion, are abusing mithral, replacing them with 1st level commoners built using the standard array (10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 11).

I am thinking that B is the way to go.. although D sounds like fun, I just do not have the time. :-)

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I would go with C as the best solution it avoids any further abuse or complication of the matter in the future. No need to worry about how to word future feats or how to explain what does and does not benefit from the armor classification modifier.

If not C then B, but did I mention I would prefer C.

[RioTsunami]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

So, a little bit of expansion on these ideas.

1. Mithral weapons - I am all for this because of the lore behind mithral as True Silver. I agree that not all materials need to be good as weapons and armor, but this is one case where it should be both.

2. Mithral armor - There are a couple roads I can take with this... listed from least nerf, to most nerf.

A - Leave it the way it is...
B - Make it so that the armor counts as one class lighter in all regards, except for proficiency.
C - Remove the one class lighter bit entirely.
D - Come to your house and rip up all character sheets of PCs that, in my supreme opinion, are abusing mithral, replacing them with 1st level commoners built using the standard array (10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 11).

I am thinking that B is the way to go.. although D sounds like fun, I just do not have the time. :-)

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I vote for B

I would like to state that making mithral weapons count as light and being finessable would lead to this. I would like this avoided AT ALL COSTS!!!

[Matthew Morris]

i'd just like to see all the metals (and deep crystal) be good for something in both weapon and armor form.

I vote C

As to the finessable bit, I'll admit I didn't think about dual scimitars. I was thinking about finessable bastard swords and the like, with the EWP.

[Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Diction wrote:

Matthew Morris wrote:

I also like the idea of making one handed mithral weapons finessable. Makes it a choice for the finesse fighter.

I am also a fan of this idea, though I worry that people that favor TWF will petition to have mithral 1-handed weapons count as light weapons in order to receive lesser penalties (unless that is already the norm, in which case I suggest ignoring my statement and pretending it didn't happen as I am both for and against the idea).

As interesting as this is... I think I am going to avoid this sort of addition. I am not sure I want to be the guy responsible for the swashbuckler using a greatsword... or a pair of longswords.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Honestly Jason! IT IS NOT! Dex fighter really seems to be having trouble in this game, and it needs a bit of a boost. For of us who actually try to wield a weapon in a martial art, or in a martial way, such as my self, any melee weapon can be used with dex as a basis for hit if they are trained to. This is a reasonable addition, please add it!

[Wildfire142]

I vote B

[RioTsunami]

Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

Honestly Jason! IT IS NOT! Dex fighter really seems to be having trouble in this game, and it needs a bit of a boost. For of us who actually try to wield a weapon in a martial art, or in a martial way, such as my self, any melee weapon can be used with dex as a basis for hit if they are trained to. This is a reasonable addition, please add it!

I can bring myself to agree with this.... at least for glaives.

[anthony Valente]

With changes to mithral being a possibility, how should this affect the cost? I'm guessing mithral weapons may become more common if they negate DR/silver.

At 500gp/lb:

A mithral dagger would cost +500gp
A mithral short sword would cost +1,000gp
A mithral longsword would cost +2,000gp
A mithral greatsword would cost +4,000gp
A mithral two-bladed sword would cost +5,000gp
A mithral orc double axe would cost +7,500gp

Personally, I like pricing mithral by the pound for items, but I can understand why the designers might not want it that way. Should there be something similar to the +3,000gp for adamantine weapons?

Or should the 500gp/lb apply to armor?

Mithral Chain shirt: 6,359gp
Mithral Breast Plate: 7,700gp
Mithral Full Plate: 14,000gp

[Tamec]

Fergie wrote:

B is great, but throw the ranger, bard and rouge a little something.

I say, this goes back to 2nd edition, that those wanting it need to go for elven chain. In second edition *think think think* rogues were proficient with leather and studded but couldn't wear chain mail. They could wear elven chain though and there were still heavy penalties to thieving skills, but all rogues were striving for that. Let Mithril chainmail crafted by elves (elven chain) be the one exception to the non-proficiency rule.

Edit: Oh, and I say B too.

[Watcher]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

As interesting as this is... I think I am going to avoid this sort of addition. I am not sure I want to be the guy responsible for the swashbuckler using a greatsword... or a pair of longswords.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Thank you!

[Watcher]

I vote C but I could live with B without too much complaint.

[Kirth Gersen]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

As interesting as this is... I think I am going to avoid this sort of addition. I am not sure I want to be the guy responsible for the swashbuckler using a greatsword... or a pair of longswords.

Thank you!!! At last, a blow against the constant "bigger weapons = kewl" trend!

[Watcher]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Thank you!!! At last, a blow against the constant "bigger weapons = kewl" trend!

Agreed. I see this all the time. Running two iterations of Runelords in 3.5 and PF, and I got "bigger weapon syndrome" too.

And I don't begrudge the players, the rules allow it, and in either case they're playing non-multiclassed fighters.

But the 3.5 fighter wields a greatsword. At frickan 12th level he's still wielding a non-magical greatsword because it has been more effective for him to just get magical weapon or greater magical weapon spell from the spellcasters when he requires it to hit something... along with a smaller magical weapon as an emergency back-up.

For them, it is all about the damage output baby.

(He's saving his money for an permanent enchantment on it, having invested heavily in his armor up to this point. I have to commend the player for his role-playing, he's named this non-magical weapon that he's had since 3rd level and everything. Angel's Kiss)

Same with the 6th level Pathfinder RPG fighter. Straight to Greataxe, backed up by Overhand Chop and Power Attack. She has passed the smaller magical weapons by in favor of saving her money to have a greataxe custom enchanted.

The message is loud in clear, just because a two handed magical weapon isn't in the loot doesn't mean players are going to give up "bigger weapons" if they absolutely don't need to.

I'm not suggesting anything be changed, but we don't need to feed the "bigger weapon trend."

[Steven Hume]

Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

Honestly Jason! IT IS NOT! Dex fighter really seems to be having trouble in this game, and it needs a bit of a boost. For of us who actually try to wield a weapon in a martial art, or in a martial way, such as my self, any melee weapon can be used with dex as a basis for hit if they are trained to. This is a reasonable addition, please add it!

yea dex based fighters already have to waste a feat to get weapon fin(i use a house rule that says at 1st lvl fighter chooses which to use for melee attacks str or dex)

[Laurefindel]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

(...)
B - Make it so that the armor counts as one class lighter in all regards, except for proficiency.
C - Remove the one class lighter bit entirely.
(...)
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

What would be the difference between "B" and "C", other than allowing a potential bard/figther, to cast in mithral breastplate without spell failure?

'findel

[AlKir]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

(...)
B - Make it so that the armor counts as one class lighter in all regards, except for proficiency.
C - Remove the one class lighter bit entirely.
(...)
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I vote for B. This makes elven chain special like it was in 2ed. Allowing light armor wearer's it's benefit. Requiring an extra proficiency will help discourage characters from wearing armor heavier than their class would normally allow..

Allowing mithral to make all one handed weapons finessable is over the top and uncalled for in my opinion.

The concept of mithral weapons overcoming DR/Silver requirements goes over well with me. The price of mithral weapons will still leave a use for cheaper (-1dmg) silver ones.

With the idea of cold iron armor granting defense against meagical effects, Noqual introduced in the current AP already fills this function very well and is worth a read. I would be interested to playtest cold iron armor granting an effect similar to circle of protection but only effecting creatures with the DR/cold iron feature already present. Thoughts?

[JoelF847]

Laurefindel wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

(...)
B - Make it so that the armor counts as one class lighter in all regards, except for proficiency.
C - Remove the one class lighter bit entirely.
(...)
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

What would be the difference between "B" and "C", other than allowing a potential bard/figther, to cast in mithral breastplate without spell failure?

'findel

There are several other areas in the Beta rules, not counting non-OGL materials-

1) Run at x4 instead of x3 for mithril heavy armor
2) Speed not reduced for mithril medium armor
3) Barbarian fast movement applies only in light or medium armor
4) Endurance feat allows for rest without fatigue in up to medium armor
5) ranger bonus feats only apply in up to light armor

[Eric Stipe]

i vote d, it'd be the funnest

[minkscooter]

Brandon Gillespie wrote:

I also wouldn't mind cold iron armor giving some sort of defense bonus against spells or magic since I imagine you would still have to pay 2X the cost of steel, not to mention 2000 gp in addition to enchantment costs. Maybe something like you can add the armor's magical enhancement bonus to saves vs. spells and spell-like abilities?

Neat idea: magic dampening armor. I could imagine dwarves being experts at crafting this the same way that elves are experts with mithral. I'm not sure what the right mechanic is in terms of game balance, but the basic idea seems to be worth exploring.

[Lathiira]

minkscooter wrote:

Brandon Gillespie wrote:

I also wouldn't mind cold iron armor giving some sort of defense bonus against spells or magic since I imagine you would still have to pay 2X the cost of steel, not to mention 2000 gp in addition to enchantment costs. Maybe something like you can add the armor's magical enhancement bonus to saves vs. spells and spell-like abilities?

Neat idea: magic dampening armor. I could imagine dwarves being experts at crafting this the same way that elves are experts with mithral. I'm not sure what the right mechanic is in terms of game balance, but the basic idea seems to be worth exploring.

Instead of using enhancement bonus, give it a bonus based on the AC bonus of the armor. Say, half the AC bonus of the armor itself, doesn't include enhancement bonuses? A +2 for chain shirts (+4 AC bonus) thru a +4 bonus for full plate (+8 AC bonus)? Make it apply to saves vs. spells and spell-like abilities at least, add in supernatural abilities if possible. Maybe let it stack with a shield as well.

[minkscooter]

I don't like the idea of mithral full plate counting as medium armor. I think I would go with option C with an exception in the case of mithral chain crafted by elves, where I would go with option B. Mithral breastplate would not count as one category lighter, even if crafted by elves.

[Disciple of Sakura]

I'm so sick of Elven Chainmail...

Seriously, why should it be the exception, when a mithral chain shirt is just as viable of being dubbed "Elven Chainmail" and it's better mechanically any way you slice it?

Just let Elven Chain be another term for a Mithral Chain Shirt and stop clinging to the full chainmail medium armor. Because it's just not really that good. It's 3,000 gp more than a mithral chainshirt (give or take a few fractions of a 100 gp), it has a higher ACP, lower max DEX, and a whopping +1 to your AC. A +1 Mithral Chainshirt costs less. Perhaps, once you're paying for a full +5 Mithral Chainshirt vs +5 Mithral Chainmail, you're in the land where it's better... by 1 point of AC, and you're still taking bigger ACP hits and maybe a hit to your Max Dex bonus.

I don't understand why people are so hung up on Mithral Chainmail and the Elven Chain legacy. Or Mithral Breastplates for that matter. I'd take the MCS over either, any day.

[Abraham spalding]

I think the problem, Disciple, isn't the medium armors, it's the chain shirt. It's an insane, inane piece of equipment that only just appeared in 3.x that really should be removed from existance...

however I tend to argue for the addition of/to stuff so I'm not going to get into depth on it.

[Brandon Gillespie]

Lathiira wrote:

Instead of using enhancement bonus, give it a bonus based on the AC bonus of the armor. Say, half the AC bonus of the armor itself, doesn't include enhancement bonuses? A +2 for chain shirts (+4 AC bonus) thru a +4 bonus for full plate (+8 AC bonus)? Make it apply to saves vs. spells and spell-like abilities at least, add in supernatural abilities if possible. Maybe let it stack with a shield as well.

I like this idea a lot. I have to see what that other material Noqual (mentioned above) is all about too.

[Bladesinger]

A few points if I may...

1 ) I LIKE Elven chain Mail, and always thought that it was a gimp that it was just Mithral Armor, which anyone could make. Elven tadition taking 200 years to learn and craft one suit should have something special about it. I always likened it more to Celestial Armor myself.

2 ) Mithral as Silver and reducing all modifiers as normal, but still requiring the correct Armor proficiency works for me, but I have always added the Finessable end to it - lets face it a mithral Long sword is technically only 2 pounds, the same as a short sword. Rule it that any weapon made of mithral that gets to 2 lbs or under is finessable, this negates the Great Sword one-handed problem. As for two Long swords, there are plenty of feats that allow this anyway, so I don't see the big deal.

3 ) LOVE the Cold Iron Armor Magic Defense thing. consider that stolen and I hope something like that gets added to Pathfinder.