Hey everyone. I personally do not like the change in the granted proficiency with mithral armor. The common argument about this is that it didn't make any sense; this got me thinking.
Sense the armor materiel is lighter, perhaps this allowed for light armor techniques to be used instead of the traditional heavy armor, such as straps and buckles which factor into movement in addition to it being 1/2 its normal weight on top of that.
People commonly look at the material more like a applied effect, but forget that this was how the armor was made.
So here is just an opposing thought.
|
Hey everyone. I personally do not like the change in the granted proficiency with mithral armor. The common argument about this is that it didn't make any sense; this got me thinking.
Sense the armor materiel is lighter, perhaps this allowed for light armor techniques to be used instead of the traditional heavy armor, such as straps and buckles which factor into movement in addition to it being 1/2 its normal weight on top of that.
People commonly look at the material more like a applied effect, but forget that this was how the armor was made.
So here is just an opposing thought.
The main problem with this line of deductive reasoning is that it is STILL incredibly hard to move in full plate. It takes time to get used to the range of motion you are allowed.
The fact they even allow you to STAND in full plate further underlines this, as the main problem with full plate is, if you were knocked over, consider yourself a casualty, because nine times out of ten, you couldn't get on your feet. It was common for peasants to knock over knights, and have the back lines come through and clean up as they went if the knight wasn't important enough for ransom.
As for getting on a HORSE? Even more ludicrous, they had to use pulleys and lift the knight before seating him on the horse. If you got knocked off your horse, you were BONED.
My point is this, its not entirely about being able to bear the weight, it still is about being able to wear the armor and know how to attack with it.
*Ahem*
While it looks heavy, a full plate armour set could be as light as only 20 kg (45 pounds) if well made of tempered steel.[2] This is less than the weight of modern combat gear of an infantry soldier (usually 25 to 35 kg), and the weight is more evenly distributed. The weight was so well spread over the body that a fit man could run, or jump into his saddle. Modern re-enactment activity has proven it is even possible to swim in armour, though it is difficult. It is possible for a fit and trained man in armour to run after and catch an unarmoured archer, as witnessed in re-enactment combat. The notion that it was necessary to lift a fully armed knight onto his horse with the help of pulleys is a myth originating in Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.[3][4] (And, in fact, the mere existence of plate armour during King Arthur era is a myth as well: 6th century knights would have worn chainmail instead.) Even knights in enormously heavy jousting armour were not winched onto their horses. This type of "sporting" armour was meant only for ceremonial lancing matches and its design was deliberately made extremely thick to protect the wearer from severe accidents, such as the one which caused the death of King Henry II of France.[citation needed]
Tournament armour is always heavier, clumsier and more protective than combat armour. The rationale is that nobody wants to get killed in a game, but on battlefield the question is about life and death, and mobility and endurance is more important aspect on combat survival than mere passive protection. Therefore combat armour is a compromise between protection and mobility, while tournament armour merely stresses protection on cost of mobility.
So yeah, I have no problem with Mithral armor being crafted to allow lighter armor profiency usage. The factor of weight and mobility is small enough in difference in reality, it shouldn't be that big a deal to have a special "non-existant in reality" near-magical material do something like this.
To me this is best addressed by something like 2e masterwork items really.
You had levels of master work, 3 or 4 I am rusty can't recall, the finer, better made the items the lighter, or easier it was to use.
Like fie,masterwork, grandmaster work or the like the better made an item is the better it works, from better damage from a sword{or crit range } to easier to use armor.
Anyhow just a random thought
...never mind, ninja'd. :)
The fact they even allow you to STAND in full plate further underlines this, as the main problem with full plate is, if you were knocked over, consider yourself a casualty, because nine times out of ten, you couldn't get on your feet. It was common for peasants to knock over knights, and have the back lines come through and clean up as they went if the knight wasn't important enough for ransom.
As for getting on a HORSE? Even more ludicrous, they had to use pulleys and lift the knight before seating him on the horse. If you got knocked off your horse, you were BONED.
This could be true in fantasy setting, but it wasn't the case in "real" history. Getting on a tall horse is hard. Getting on a tall horse while wearing an historically correct armor isn't that harder. Try it.
As for the down = dead part, the contrary happened to a french king (can't remember which one at the top of my head). Got knocked prone off his horse, his guard spent minutes fighting their way back to the fallen king and dispersing the enemies, only to wipe the king's nosebleed.
[Edit] Couldn't find who it was, but if I remember right, the "encounter" was against a bunch of low-level muggers. Trained soldiers would undoubtedly have been more efficient. Then again, if they really were that good, they'd capture the king for the ransom instead...
As for mithral and proficiency, the ONLY issue is about game balance. One could argue the realism (or lack thereof) either way. Personally, I'd compare a mithral full plate to a modern aluminum or composite armor made for actors and stunts: more protection than its historical counterpart for a fraction of the encumbrance and a MUCH enhanced mobility.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Hey everyone. I personally do not like the change in the granted proficiency with mithral armor.
The addition of the line about not lowering the proficiency is wonderful. The old way (where we had weekly arguments online over the meaning of the "other penalties") was not working. I'm glad they made the change to clarify it.
This could be true in fantasy setting, but it wasn't the case in "real" history. Getting on a tall horse is hard. Getting on a tall horse while wearing an historically correct armor isn't that harder. Try it.
Get a look at some historic woodcuts sometime. If you look around you'll find some portraits of full plated Knights being winched on to thier Clysdales, the only horse that could take the weight of the knight and the barding applied to it.
Then again the full blown plate armor was typically only used for exhibition jousting not war because of it's inherent flaws. On the field Half-plate was probably more common.
These would be lower middle age tournament armors, not battle armors. There is a lot of German or British engravings and etchings of those. Indeed, these were so restrictive the knight could barely walk, never mind fight; tournament armors were not fully articulated and were meant for horseback only... and for the show.
Then again, this all depends on your vision of the fantasy full plate. If its like the tournament armors, I'd buy the lack of mobility, but to the point of being useless on foot.
Personally, I think that the fantasy full plate should be usable just as well on foot, even if that isn't quite historically accurate. But I agree with the OP that a Mithral full plate is not only lighter, it should be a lot easier to use without heavy armor training. That being said, I am aware with the balance issue that this causes, and I can live happily ever after even if mithral full plates require heavy armor prof.
In the end, we imagine the game as we want, whether we tend toward a realistic or historically accurate approach - or bend toward the myth - is up to us. Either is just as acceptable. I like to imagine the hygiene concept a LOT more advanced than what they use to be during the low middle age for example. And I like to imagine the mithral full plate as the elven abusively-cool-pinacle-of-the-mithral-smithing-science kind of deal, and accordingly, my teeth grinds when my players casually go shopping for such an armor.
'findel
Not that it really should be an issue. Mithral Full Plate is meant for warrior type characters, fighters and Paladin types who already have the proficency needed. Rangers wouldn't wear it because it penalises stealth and agility to an unacceptable degree, and Bards would have the arcane casting issue.
And a barbarian shouldn't be the kind of person who'd want to tin can himself anyway.
With the cleric having only medium armor proficiency, it can create a new niche for a "cheated" medium armor.
|
|
The main "offender" is usually a mithral breastplate, which is the standard 3.5 kit of all of the light armor users.Not that it really should be an issue. Mithral Full Plate is meant for warrior type characters, fighters and Paladin types who already have the proficency needed. Rangers wouldn't wear it because it penalises stealth and agility to an unacceptable degree, and Bards would have the arcane casting issue.
And a barbarian shouldn't be the kind of person who'd want to tin can himself anyway.
Actually the main offender was the mithral chain shirt.
No armor check penalty and the same armor bonus. (+6 max dex and +4 armor compared to the breastplates +5/+5)
That's part of the reason all the medium armors and heavy armors got a one point boost in armor.
Hey everyone. I personally do not like the change in the granted proficiency with mithral armor.The addition of the line about not lowering the proficiency is wonderful. The old way (where we had weekly arguments online over the meaning of the "other penalties") was not working. I'm glad they made the change to clarify it.
Only because people ignored official FAQ rulings, and clarifications in at least 2 printings.
|
|
Different problem entirely. I'm talking about light armor classes wearing medium mithral armor.Actually the main offender was the mithral chain shirt.
No armor check penalty and the same armor bonus. (+6 max dex and +4 armor compared to the breastplates +5/+5)
That's just it though.
Unless you liked having an armor check penalty of -1 you had no reason to ever choose the breastplate, because the chain shirt did the same thing with no check penalty. In 3.5 there was absolutely NO reason to go Medium armor, it didn't give you any benefits that light armor couldn't already do itself. In fact you hurt your touch ac far more going medium armor.
It was just that stupid. The fact you COULD wear medium armor as light was a novelty and only really used for people playing certain classes with fluff. The twinks and power gamers were sitting on the sidelines in their mithral chain shirts laughing because they had the better armor.
Sure, theoretically, you could say that mithral breastplates were stolen for this purpose. I'm just saying, more often than not, there was no need. That's why Pathfinder had to fix it by upping medium and heavy armor a point, because there was no reason at all to go medium armor if you didn't have to.
|
|
Unless you liked having an armor check penalty of -1 you had no reason to ever choose the breastplate, because the chain shirt did the same thing with no check penalty. In 3.5 there was absolutely NO reason to go Medium armor, it didn't give you any benefits that light armor couldn't already do itself. In fact you hurt your touch ac far more going medium armor.Mostly barbarians and non-core classes and somehow-armor-limited PRCs did it. -1 armor check penalty is not a big deal for non-dex-monkeys; they aren't stacking those skills anyway, and it saves them having to dig up another +2 to dex of marginal utility other than as AC.
But this is quibbling. You're right, it wasn't really much of a gamebreaker, and isn't much of one even after medium and heavy armor are buffed.
You have a point there. I suppose if dex wasn't a main stat. However I would argue the marginal utility. Dex determined a lot of important things, such as Initiative, reflex save, AND ac. While your class helped out a bit, you were probably better served with that +1 dex mod to ac than the armor. The barbarian especially could benefit from this. While unable to do most dex based skills there were still a few he could and should have at least some dex for. (Grease spell and keeping your balance to name one)
And a barbarian shouldn't be the kind of person who'd want to tin can himself anyway.
A dwarf barbarian in mithral full plate was arguably the strongest character in one of my games.
And a barbarian shouldn't be the kind of person who'd want to tin can himself anyway.A dwarf barbarian in mithral full plate was arguably the strongest character in one of my games.
I agree, you are restricting the concept of a barbarian too much to your ideals.
They have the same requirements for stats, but just more of them, as a fighter, and maybe even add Cha to the mix with all the intimidate abilities.
So your stuck paying a feat ether way. 1 for heavy armor prof. or for the strength added to intimidate, if not both.
"Stuck" paying a feat to get better at Intimidate - which is arguably the single most effective fear effect (inducing the shaken condition, which according to page 563 of the PRPG Core Rules is in the Fear category of Special Abilities - and thus subject to the "becoming more fearful" part of that ability) in the game - is no different than being "stuck" paying a feat to use Heavy Armor when you're not a Fighter or Paladin, "stuck" paying an Exotic Weapon Proficiency to feat to use a bastard sword one-handed nor being "stuck" paying a feat as an arcane spell caster to get better at Use Magic Device.
The fact is that there are two feats (Skill Focus and, in the case of Intimidate, Persuasive) that stack with each other to add to provide an additional +5 bonus that increases to a +10 bonus once the 10th skill rank is assigned to the skill is also no different from most of the other skills in the game also having this same potential benefit. Intimidate is, as far as I can tell, the only skill as the PRPG rules are currently written that has its own feat permitting combining two attributes as a bonus to the skill. Assuming a 10 Charisma and an 18 Strength, a first level human fighter selecting Intimidating Prowess as his bonus combat feat starts with a total +14 Intimidate bonus (1 rank +3 trained +2 Persuasive +3 Skill Focus +0 Cha +4 Str). A +14 rolling a 6 on the d20 is enough to affect almost any foe encountered for the next several levels of play for at least one round. By 3rd level said Fighter tacks on Weapon Focus and Dazzling Display, unlocking an "area effect" mass demoralize / fear special ability. A Circlet of Persuasion is pretty cheap (+3 more) and a Headband of Alluring Charisma +2 is not much more AND can be worn along with said Circlet (+1 more) for a +20 Intimidate at - in theory - about 3rd level. At 10th level said Fighter has a staggering +31 Intimidate bonus (10 ranks +3 trained +0 Charisma +4 Strength +6 skill focus +4 Persuasive +3 competence +1 enhancement) that goes up by 2 or 3 more points with a bull's strength and eagle's splendor pair of spells.
On Topic: As far as the rules regarding requiring proficiency with Heavy Armor to use Mithral heavy armor ... well, frankly, house rule as you see fit for your home game. I seriously doubt that PRPG will be officially amended to suit the request to do otherwise.
Personally, I agree with requiring that one is proficient in heavy armor to get the very, very significant benefit of mithral heavy armor. This supposedly onerous requirement is impartial - any one that wants mithral heavy armor and can afford to purchase enough mithral to fashion it (as mithral heavy armor according to PRPG is simply not available "off the shelf") can use it to its full benefit. If not, deal with the -3 check penalty - which by the time you can afford mithral heavy armor you can afford the "buff" spells that counter most of that penalty on attack rolls and move on. The complaints that I am seeing are that mithral used to make it as easy to wear as a lighter armor category. What it does now is make a proficient user able to make the greatest use of the armor, moving at a faster rate of speed [moot for Fighters of 7th level and up who ignore the movement rate reductions for medium and heavy armors], better able to avoid blows as opposed to interposing the armor against blows ad nauseam.
Getting the benefit of a heavy armor's bonus [+8 or +9] to AC while obtaining
- a maximum Dex bonus that is almost as good as any of the medium armor [+2 or +3 max Dex depending on which heavy armor you make out of mithral]
- halving the encumbrance [putting mithral full plate at the same 25 lbs as hide armor]
- massively reducing the arcane spell failure chance [to 20%, equal to hide armor and chain shirts at more than double the unenchanted armor bonus]
- greatly improving the base hardness [hardness 15, 10 greater than the hide armor that is so often comparable and between steel's 10 & adamantine's 20 hardness] to be able to stand up to adamantine weapons' "ignore hardness less than 20" by 9th level
- lastly a -3 check penalty [equal to nonmasterwork hide and masterwork scale mail/breastplate armors])
That's some pretty nice benefits for one feat and no more than 10,500 gp.
"Stuck" paying a feat to get better at Intimidate - which is arguably the single most effective fear effect (inducing the shaken condition, which according to page 563 of the PRPG Core Rules is in the Fear category of Special Abilities - and thus subject to the "becoming more fearful" part of that ability) in the game - is no different than being "stuck" paying a feat to use Heavy Armor when you're not a Fighter or Paladin, "stuck" paying an Exotic Weapon Proficiency to feat to use a bastard sword one-handed nor being "stuck" paying a feat as an arcane spell caster to get better at Use Magic Device.
The fact is that there are two feats (Skill Focus and, in the case of Intimidate, Persuasive) that stack with each other to add to provide an additional +5 bonus that increases to a +10 bonus once the 10th skill rank is assigned to the skill is also no different from most of the other skills in the game also having this same potential benefit. Intimidate is, as far as I can tell, the only skill as the PRPG rules are currently written that has its own feat permitting combining two attributes as a bonus to the skill. Assuming a 10 Charisma and an 18 Strength, a first level human fighter selecting Intimidating Prowess as his bonus combat feat starts with a total +14 Intimidate bonus (1 rank +3 trained +2 Persuasive +3 Skill Focus +0 Cha +4 Str). A +14 rolling a 6 on the d20 is enough to affect almost any foe encountered for the next several levels of play for at least one round. By 3rd level said Fighter tacks on Weapon Focus and Dazzling Display, unlocking an "area effect" mass demoralize / fear special ability. A Circlet of Persuasion is pretty cheap (+3 more) and a Headband of Alluring Charisma +2 is not much more AND can be worn along with said Circlet (+1 more) for a +20 Intimidate at - in theory - about 3rd level. At 10th level said Fighter has a staggering +31 Intimidate bonus (10 ranks +3 trained +0 Charisma +4 Strength +6 skill focus +4 Persuasive +3 competence...
OK that is fine. I just wanted to point out that there is bit more of a stat requirement for barbarians, but that this can be some what fixed by spending 1 or 2 feats, but that is still 2 less feats than a fighter class, that they don't get a lot of (unlike the fighter). Sense barbarians have less armor they need more dex than a fighter. The strength boost from rage simply brings things to par (maybe under) with fighters weapon focus/specialization feats.
I don't plan on Paizo changing things any time soon, but I thought this might make for a good counter argument. On a more personal note, I fully expect you not to change this rule in your games, or anyone who likes the change to ether. When people were talking about this subject in the beta I knew the way Jason seemed to jump all for this subject that it was done deal. So I just thought I suggest an apposing opinion to those open to home rules. Not really looking up for a debate, but I respect the apposing opinion.