|
I know how they're priced, but they're not functionally armor enhancements without armor. For one, I'm not sure you can add special abilities to them (since they're not even a +0 AC shirt), and they can reach a +8 bonus, whereas the enhancement bonus to AC can only reach +5 without artifacts or epic level rules being applied; likewise being force effects (IIRC), that's an additional difference.In either case, they are underwhelming for their benefit.
* armor may have +10 bonus (only +5 enhancement though, the rest being abilities)
* bracers may have +8 bonus (or +1 min and other abilities, for a total of +8)
the point is that not everyone is allowed to wear armors, and the bracers fully benefit those.
yes they suck compared to a mithral full plate; but compared to no armor, they're great !
yes they suck compared to a mithral full plate; but compared to no armor, they're great !
... assuming your game has no concept of appropriate wealth by level.
If it does, that money is almost always better spent on something else. I guess maybe I'd spring for it if I was a high level monk who ran out of other things to buy.
|
Show me. it's been stated time and time again that studded leather armor only has enough metal in it's construction to screw up druids, not enough for mithral to have any game effect otherwise.I'd like to chime in that Bracers of Armor are woefully overpriced. Sorry, they're just never worth the amount of money for the AC bonus they provide. By the time you can afford them, they are underpowered. In fact, they are underpowered at 1st level; but it's not the fault of Mage Armor.
For the record, mithril studded leather is legal in Pathfinder.
Mithril Studded Leather is debateable.
The line of reasoning is: "if it has enough metal to screw up druids, then it has enough metal to benefit from mithril".
It's not clear whether or not this line of reasoning is correct. We don't know how much % metal studded leather can have before it no longer counts as studded leather, and we dont know how much % metal something needs in order to be made out of mithril.
It's not "definitely legal" in pathfinder. It's not definitely illegal in pathfinder". It's unclear.
Personally, I think the reasoning is clever and creates consistency, and so I'd probably allow it in my games. But that's my opinion - the rules are not 100% clear.
Wearing any metal screws up druids. It's not because metal screws up druidic magic. It's because wearing any metal is a violation of druidic oaths. as Fey find metal extremely offensive.
The rule is even more strict in Ars Magica because if you're entering a fae forest there, you're expected to leave all of your ironwork behind.
That's incorrect. Only metal armor/shields screws up druids. They can wear metal bracelets, headbands, amulets, bracers, and whatever else they want as long as it doesn't take their armor or shield slot.
|
|
the point is that not everyone is allowed to wear armors, and the bracers fully benefit those.AFAIK, the only class that can't wear armor is the Monk.
* wizard, sorcerer, witches (I know they can cast the spell, but they have to know+cast it)
* anyone with a STR of 3 (or for whom encumbrance matters)... assuming your game has no concept of appropriate wealth by level.
If it does, that money is almost always better spent on something else.
It does, and I like bracers of fortification for my mage.
don't take me wrong: I agree that armor are better in most cases, but bracers have their niche.
Mage Armor is a nice spell, and one many, if not most wizards and sorcerers will want for at least part of their adventuring lives, but I don't think it is overpowered, except, perhaps occasionally when used by some already high AC spellcasting monster that uses the +4 to boost its AC into nigh unhittable. That's a niche case, though.
At early levels, the spell is limited in duration, so an arcane caster has to wait until he is pretty sure combat is coming before casting it. As you progress, the spell becomes a standard buff for the caster each day, and will last most of the adventuring day. At higher levels, the +4 is still useful, but there are lots of other defensive options.
The spell is also even a little more useful cast on animal companions, monks or rogues who choose to go unarmored, giving them a lot more durability in combat. If someone rolls for stats or uses really high point buy and comes up with a monk with a real high Wis and Dex, it can push AC pretty high, but that's another niche case.
Nice and useful through multiple levels, but not overpowering, IMHO.
Bracers are probably overcosted. It's also interesting that the individuals that benefit most from bracers are the individuals with blindingly high dexterity scores.
I still use them quite often in my games because it would be gauche for nobles and merchants to wear armor to parties and business meetings. It's unfortunate that their cost to benefit ratio means that instead of being a common investment for mages and mobile fighters it tends to be more of an end game addition when money is less of a constraint.
Ultimately it's kinda a legacy item that should've been reconsidered during the transition from 2e to 3.x.
16000 gp for a +1 force armor and DR/5 magic. Mr. Fishy wants a pair in blue.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
I find that Mage Armor is fine when it's used on a mage. It's when other characters start getting the spell cast on them that things start to get crazy. In my gaming group, I have (among others) a Monk and a Summoner. Both the Monk and the Summoner's Eidolon get up to ridiculous ACs when the Summoner starts casting Mage Armor on them.
My take is that it would be fine if it were a Personal spell. But when it can be cast on already-high-AC characters and creatures who don't normally wear armor, it starts to get annoying. . .
I looked at the price of crafting Bracers of Armor (my wizard has been collecting item-crafting feats), and opted for a Wand of Mage Armor and a Wand of Shield instead. They're created at CL 1, so the spells don't last long, but most of our combats are over in less than the ten rounds the Shield lasts, and of course the one-hour Mage Armor is good for most of a dungeon crawl. I might use up the charges and have to replace one of the wands once before the end of the adventure path, but that's still a hell of a lot cheaper than Bracers +4.
If we had another character who could benefit from it in the party, having the spell in wand form would be even more useful, but the fighter, cleric, and rogue all get at least a +4 bonus from their armor, and the ranger is a superstitious Shoanti who isn't about to let some Chelish "finger-wiggler" cast any spells on him.
|
|
I looked at the price of crafting Bracers of Armor (my wizard has been collecting item-crafting feats), and opted for a Wand of Mage Armor and a Wand of Shield instead. They're created at CL 1, so the spells don't last long, but most of our combats are over in less than the ten rounds the Shield lasts, and of course the one-hour Mage Armor is good for most of a dungeon crawl. I might use up the charges and have to replace one of the wands once before the end of the adventure path, but that's still a hell of a lot cheaper than Bracers +4.
If we had another character who could benefit from it in the party, having the spell in wand form would be even more useful, but the fighter, cleric, and rogue all get at least a +4 bonus from their armor, and the ranger is a superstitious Shoanti who isn't about to let some Chelish "finger-wiggler" cast any spells on him.
but you'd need your wand(s) in hand, waste a round to cast mage armor (and another for shield)
that wouldn't work in surprise round, or while sleeping.I thought the action economy was the most important part of the game :)
I looked at the price of crafting Bracers of Armor (my wizard has been collecting item-crafting feats), and opted for a Wand of Mage Armor and a Wand of Shield instead. They're created at CL 1, so the spells don't last long, but most of our combats are over in less than the ten rounds the Shield lasts, and of course the one-hour Mage Armor is good for most of a dungeon crawl. I might use up the charges and have to replace one of the wands once before the end of the adventure path, but that's still a hell of a lot cheaper than Bracers +4.
If we had another character who could benefit from it in the party, having the spell in wand form would be even more useful, but the fighter, cleric, and rogue all get at least a +4 bonus from their armor, and the ranger is a superstitious Shoanti who isn't about to let some Chelish "finger-wiggler" cast any spells on him.
but you'd need your wand(s) in hand, waste a round to cast mage armor (and another for shield)
that wouldn't work in surprise round, or while sleeping.
I thought the action economy was the most important part of the game :)
It is. But mage armor is a long term buff. As he noted, a simple 1 hour duration is generally quite enough for a dungeon crawl or similar scene where the party will be in immediate danger. In a "you're suddenly ambushed while walking through the park" scenario, yeah, then it's not very good (but bracers aren't very good either for their cost).
Sit down sometime and notice how amazingly fast a part of adventurers can delve through a...let's say 25 room dungeon (that sounds pretty big, right?). Just at walking pace they're probably covering about 20-40ft every 6 seconds, spending around 1 minute per combat encounter, the occasional 2 minutes to take 20 searching a room, etc. 1 hour (60 minutes or 600 rounds) is pretty pretty good when it only costs you about 15 gp per charge if you bought it, or 7.5 gp if you crafted it yourself (maybe on your bonded item).
Hmm, is it just me or do we have this kind of discussion a lot lately?
This spell has been in existance for how many years?
Now there is one thread at the boards that calls it OPed and it got 111 posts?!
As soon as the duration gets interesting (and Level 1 Spell slots start to be less important) the bonus itself is not that good, so this spell balances itself quite nicely.
Really.
It does, and I like bracers of fortification for my mage.
Okay, so let's say you want heavy fortification on bracers.
That's a 36k item that grants a +1 armor bonus and 75% protection against critical hits. It can't stack with any other kind of armor bonus -- if someone so much as casts mage armor on you, the bracers stop functioning entirely.
What could our mage do instead with 36k?
He could have the appropriate headband of +6 to his casting stat. That's going to make him dramatically better at everything he does.
He could have a cloak of minor displacement, giving him a 20% miss chance against most attacks and a functional immunity to most sneak attacks -- with 12k to spare.
He could have a 5x10 carpet of flying.
He could have a huge sack of pearls of power, if he's a wizard.
He could put a serious down-payment on a cube of force.
etc.
Sit down sometime and notice how amazingly fast a part of adventurers can delve through a...let's say 25 room dungeon (that sounds pretty big, right?). Just at walking pace they're probably covering about 20-40ft every 6 seconds, spending around 1 minute per combat encounter, the occasional 2 minutes to take 20 searching a room, etc.
As quick as that is, it gets even faster once your players realize that, in most cases, there's no reason they can't storm the dungeon like a SWAT team and take time for detailed searches only after everything they can find is dead.
Even the minute-level spells are awfully long for that tactic.
The old school enter a room, slay inhabitants, loot bodies, scout for any secret features/traps, before going down the corridor to the next room is still pretty common but DM is right many groups seem to try to power through and/or bypass as many encounters as possible before burning through their buffs.
It's efficient because if you standard buff catalog is 3-4 spells at any given time that can be a huge number of spells burned in 4-5 encounters per day. If I only have to burn the buffs once or twice per set of 4-5 encounters I have more of my spell load available for offensive options.
I think if the designers really wanted to continue the 1e-2e dungeon crawl style of play they'd either make most buffs extremely long in duration so it doesn't matter how many take 20 search attempts you use scouting the dungeon or they need to set up the buffs so that they are really short duration so that the casters always need to prebuff before most fights and/or choose to go into fights sans buffs.
It does, and I like bracers of fortification for my mage.
Okay, so let's say you want heavy fortification on bracers.
That's a 36k item that grants a +1 armor bonus and 75% protection against critical hits. It can't stack with any other kind of armor bonus -- if someone so much as casts mage armor on you, the bracers stop functioning entirely.
What could our mage do instead with 36k?
He could have the appropriate headband of +6 to his casting stat. That's going to make him dramatically better at everything he does.
He could have a cloak of minor displacement, giving him a 20% miss chance against most attacks and a functional immunity to most sneak attacks -- with 12k to spare.
He could have a 5x10 carpet of flying.
He could have a huge sack of pearls of power, if he's a wizard.
He could put a serious down-payment on a cube of force.
etc.
Except for the 75% chance to ignore crits/sneaks. That's still pretty nice and doesn't go away.
EDIT: Oh wait, my bad. I just read the description, and EVERYTHING turns off, making them 130% overpriced and/or useless. :P
Show me. it's been stated time and time again that studded leather armor only has enough metal in it's construction to screw up druids, not enough for mithral to have any game effect otherwise.I'd like to chime in that Bracers of Armor are woefully overpriced. Sorry, they're just never worth the amount of money for the AC bonus they provide. By the time you can afford them, they are underpowered. In fact, they are underpowered at 1st level; but it's not the fault of Mage Armor.
For the record, mithril studded leather is legal in Pathfinder.
Pg. 118 of the GMG lists Mithral Studded Leather as a random treasure.
Pg. 118 of the GMG lists Mithral Studded Leather as a random treasure.Show me. it's been stated time and time again that studded leather armor only has enough metal in it's construction to screw up druids, not enough for mithral to have any game effect otherwise.I'd like to chime in that Bracers of Armor are woefully overpriced. Sorry, they're just never worth the amount of money for the AC bonus they provide. By the time you can afford them, they are underpowered. In fact, they are underpowered at 1st level; but it's not the fault of Mage Armor.
For the record, mithril studded leather is legal in Pathfinder.
Thank you Quantum Steve.
I don't really care, honestly. Maybe each group should decide for themselves, but it's listed as an armor in one of the main pathfinder books (the Gamemastery Guide), and cannot be used by druids (who are prohibited from wearing metal armor, not armor that just has some metal with it). So from where I'm sitting, that's at least 2 vs 1, so I'm going to go with it.
Also, before anyone decides to argue that leather armors and such don't have some metal: look it up. They typically have metal components such as buckles, and suits like the leather cuirass (which is leather armor, essentially) and have metal components that help hold it together.
The armor must be metal if the druid cannot wear it. Merely carrying metal equipment does not screw up a druid's magic. The druid can even carry a crapload of scimitars and daggers if he/she wishes, but unless the armor is made of metal she has no problems. She cannot wear studded leather, so studded leather must obviously have enough metal to qualify as "metal armor".
That's about all I have to say about that. It will of course vary from group to group, as something always does (seriously, people still argue about trip-locking and wanting it to work to the point of ignoring the rules in their home games just so you can trip lock on AoOs, so I have no interest in actually trying to convince anyone).
Thank you Quantum Steve.Pg. 118 of the GMG lists Mithral Studded Leather as a random treasure.Show me. it's been stated time and time again that studded leather armor only has enough metal in it's construction to screw up druids, not enough for mithral to have any game effect otherwise.I'd like to chime in that Bracers of Armor are woefully overpriced. Sorry, they're just never worth the amount of money for the AC bonus they provide. By the time you can afford them, they are underpowered. In fact, they are underpowered at 1st level; but it's not the fault of Mage Armor.
For the record, mithril studded leather is legal in Pathfinder.
I counter with the following two points.
1. The armor is not listed in the core rules and is it stated out in the Guide in a way that contradicts what I've said? I suspect not.
2. Quote from the core rules. Items not primarily of metal are not meaningfully affected by being partially made of mithral. Having studs does not qualify as having metal as it's primary construction.
They did show you Lazar. Now you have post a countering source. :)
The problem is that wizards and sorcerers have stinky-poo AC, generally whatever they do. At first level, sure, it's a significant bonus with +4, but then it ends up improving a not-very-impressive AC into better-but-still-not-impressive AC. If the beasties are fighting you up close, you've already done something wrong as a wizard.
I counter with the following two points.
1. The armor is not listed in the core rules and is it stated out in the Guide in a way that contradicts what I've said? I suspect not.
2. Quote from the core rules. Items not primarily of metal are not meaningfully affected by being partially made of mithral. Having studs does not qualify as having metal as it's primary construction.
1. Could you please point me to a core reference to, say, Mithral half-plate?
2. Could you please point me to a core reference that defines the "primary" material of any armor?
The problem is that wizards and sorcerers have stinky-poo AC, generally whatever they do. At first level, sure, it's a significant bonus with +4, but then it ends up improving a not-very-impressive AC into better-but-still-not-impressive AC. If the beasties are fighting you up close, you've already done something wrong as a wizard.
Sissyl is correct. Even if you optimize your AC as a wizard, using mithral armors and the like, you're probably still lacking. Assuming you spend 0 feats, you can likely reach the following AC without too much trouble:
+5 Mithral Studded Leather (+8 armor)
+5 Mithral Buckler (+6 shield)
+1 Defending Weapon + GMW (+5 misc)
+5 amulet of natural armor (+5 natural)
+5 Ring of Protection (+5 deflection)
Dusty Rose Ioun Stone (+1 insight)
Guesstimate of a 18 Dex (starting 12-14 with a +4-6 enhancement) (+4 dex)
That's a 48 AC at 20th level if you focus pretty heavily on AC.
However, I believe it would benefit you more to instead try to stack resistances, immunities, and miss chances (via rings, armor enhancements, and items like the cloak of displacement) and try to avoid getting into danger at all.
A paladin (not even going to use a Fighter, 'cause everyone knows fighter AC is super) can pull the following without much trouble.
+5 Mithral Full Plate w/ Kilt (+15 armor)
+5 Mithral Heavy Steel Shield (+7 shield)
+1 Defending Weapon (shield) + GMW (+5 misc)
+5 Amulet of Natural Armor (+5 natural)
+5 Ring of Protection (+5 deflection)
Dusty Rose Ioun Stone (+1 insight)
16 Dexterity (+3 dex)
That's AC 51, without feats such as Dodge, Combat Expertise, or Shield Focus taken into account. If Combat Expertise is accounted, that's 57. If the Paladin instead picked up tower shield proficiency, that's an extra +2 (replace +1 defending shield with +1 defending armor spikes) for a 59. Fighting Defensively brings it to 61. Against the paladin's smite target, her charisma bonus is applied as a deflection, giving her about +8-10 deflection instead of +5 (bringing her AC to 64 easily) against the target, while also negating the penalties for using Combat Expertise and Fighting Defensively due to Charisma-to-Hit.
So the Paladin has a 15-80% difference in AC depending on dedication to avoiding incoming melee. But let's just go with the basics for the moment (no feats counted).
The wizard with a 48 AC is hit on a roll of 17 by a Tarn Linnorm, a roll of 16 on a Balor's first attack, and a roll of 11 by a CR 20 gold dragon. The Paladin is hit only on a 20 by the Linnorm, a 19 by the Balor's 1st attack, and a 14 by the gold dragon. If the Paladin applies Combat expertise, then they can only strike the paladin on a natural 20; before counting concealment and similar abilities.
Now the funny thing is, while bracers of armor are overly expensive for their value, they still result in the same situation (so you can't blame mithral studded leather for the wizard's high AC).
But the Fighter makes both look kind of laughable with his AC opportunities. However, at this level, if the wizard if fighting opponents while on the same plane as those opponents, he's probably not fighting like he wants to survive anyway.
Really, bracers should either cost half what they do now, or the non-AC abilities should stack with mage armor or magic vestment.
Really, bracers should either cost half what they do now, or the non-AC abilities should stack with mage armor or magic vestment.
The bracers are kinda clunky, honestly. They are treated like a +0 AC armor that is then enhanced, except they break the rules for armor enhancement. You can't get +gp cost abilities added to them, you can add up to a +8 AC bonus (whereas armors are limited to a +5 enhancement bonus), and you apparently cannot reach a +10 equivalency bonus without crafting the item yourself (since it lists them up to +8 only).
It's not really even the pricing that's the problem. The problem is it's really just a base AC 0 armor that uses goofy rules.
sure Mage armor can be dispelled but I've never seen ot happen. so with Mage armor I'n the game why are the graders worth so much?
Someone isn't running encounters right if there hasn't a million dispel magics and counterspells hurled about, especially at high levels. If the campaign is magic rich, then countermagic should be just as common. It's how I run campaigns, especially involving high level casters. Sure, there's Wizard/Eldritch Knight/Abjurant Champion in the party who Polymorphs into a cave troll, has on all-day Heart of Fire/Earth/Water/Air spells, Greater Luminous Armor and Shield spells (total AC increase of +11 from Polymorph, +11 force armor, +7 force shield)...but a dispel magic or greater dispel magic his way and he regrets using half his spell slots on nigh-all day spells.
In a game where spellcasters can easily break campaigns...antimagic, dispel magic, counterspell, and magic-eating monsters are your BFFs.
Indeed. Greater dispel magic is your friend; and since Pathfinder revised mage's disjunction, it is now your best friend at the levels you can use it. All buffs, gone, bye-bye.
sure Mage armor can be dispelled but I've never seen ot happen. so with Mage armor I'n the game why are the graders worth so much?Someone isn't running encounters right if there hasn't a million dispel magics and counterspells hurled about, especially at high levels. If the campaign is magic rich, then countermagic should be just as common. It's how I run campaigns, especially involving high level casters. Sure, there's Wizard/Eldritch Knight/Abjurant Champion in the party who Polymorphs into a cave troll, has on all-day Heart of Fire/Earth/Water/Air spells, Greater Luminous Armor and Shield spells (total AC increase of +11 from Polymorph, +11 force armor, +7 force shield)...but a dispel magic or greater dispel magic his way and he regrets using half his spell slots on nigh-all day spells.
Technically, PF non-greater Dispel Magic isn't stripping more than one of those spells, no matter what -- and even PF Greater Dispel isn't getting all of them even if you roll straight 20s.
EDIT: Oh wait, my bad. I just read the description, and EVERYTHING turns off, making them 130% overpriced and/or useless. :P
Yeah. Realizing that is what pushed me from thinking they were just overpriced to thinking they were silly.
The cost is about right. Mages should be spending more per AC point than the martials.
Except if it costs too much (which it does), no one who understands how they work and knows better buys them.
Really, bracers should either cost half what they do now, or the non-AC abilities should stack with mage armor or magic vestment.The cost is about right. Mages should be spending more per AC point than the martials.
How much more should it cost? If a fighter wants +8 AC, he spends 600gp if a Wizard wants +8 AC he needs to spend 64,000gp? Should a fighter be spending more on magic than a wizard? If he wants a belt of strength, should it cost 100x more than a headband of intelligence?
IF the armor is named *something* studded leather, do you really need to have an entirely separate rule to see that leather means leather?I counter with the following two points.
1. The armor is not listed in the core rules and is it stated out in the Guide in a way that contradicts what I've said? I suspect not.
2. Quote from the core rules. Items not primarily of metal are not meaningfully affected by being partially made of mithral. Having studs does not qualify as having metal as it's primary construction.
1. Could you please point me to a core reference to, say, Mithral half-plate?
2. Could you please point me to a core reference that defines the "primary" material of any armor?
I'm not sure I'm following what you mean. It's the studs that are mithral, of course, not the leather. Or do mean to imply that you can't have mithral full-plate because it contains non-metal components?
I'm not sure I'm following what you mean. It's the studs that are mithral, of course, not the leather. Or do mean to imply that you can't have mithral full-plate because it contains non-metal components?IF the armor is named *something* studded leather, do you really need to have an entirely separate rule to see that leather means leather?I counter with the following two points.
1. The armor is not listed in the core rules and is it stated out in the Guide in a way that contradicts what I've said? I suspect not.
2. Quote from the core rules. Items not primarily of metal are not meaningfully affected by being partially made of mithral. Having studs does not qualify as having metal as it's primary construction.
1. Could you please point me to a core reference to, say, Mithral half-plate?
2. Could you please point me to a core reference that defines the "primary" material of any armor?
Since studded leather has 50% more AC than regular leather, I'd say the studs constitute a significant portion of the armor and can be mithriled.
Really, bracers should either cost half what they do now, or the non-AC abilities should stack with mage armor or magic vestment.The bracers are kinda clunky, honestly. They are treated like a +0 AC armor that is then enhanced, except they break the rules for armor enhancement. You can't get +gp cost abilities added to them, you can add up to a +8 AC bonus (whereas armors are limited to a +5 enhancement bonus), and you apparently cannot reach a +10 equivalency bonus without crafting the item yourself (since it lists them up to +8 only).
It's not really even the pricing that's the problem. The problem is it's really just a base AC 0 armor that uses goofy rules.
Then again it isn't really base ac 0 armor, since you wear it on your wrists, leaving your body open for other stuff and being a force effect rather than physical armor.
Personally I have no trouble at all with allowing a Robe to be enchanted like +0 armor since magical vestment can do it as well, I think that option should be added in the rules.
Most campaigns... you find magic items, not put in an order at MagicMart.
Says who?
And really, there's a whole spectrum of campaign choices between the two.
Also: I don't think it's all that common to ban all the crafting feats -- which doesn't result in your caricature of a magic mart, but effectively? Magic mart.
The problem with recosting the bracers is that you end up needing yet another cost formula for bracers on top of the formula for armor enhancement and the formula for natural armor/deflection bonus. This isn't particularly good design work.
The problem is that bracers don't get freebie armor bonuses like regular armor does. Chain Shirt +1 is in effect a +5 to AC, which is tremendously expensive if you do that with enhancement bonuses.
So in effect you are stuck between needing to generate a lower cost method of creating bracers in order to make it so they aren't just vendor trash but you don't want to make them so cheap that everyone relies on bracers plus high dexterity modifiers.
Honestly there really isn't a good solution at the current cost structure bracers are too costly in terms of resources and everyone with the ability to craft will trade them in for better gear. If you make them too cheap you reduce one of the limited checks on arcane caster power which is abysmally low base ACs.
I think you could abandon the cost formula altogether and make ad hoc pricing decisions for the bracers but that can set a bad precedent. Furthermore getting the right cost/benefit ratio is pretty difficult.
Since studded leather has 50% more AC than regular leather, I'd say the studs constitute a significant portion of the armor and can be mithriled.I'm not sure I'm following what you mean. It's the studs that are mithral, of course, not the leather. Or do mean to imply that you can't have mithral full-plate because it contains non-metal components?IF the armor is named *something* studded leather, do you really need to have an entirely separate rule to see that leather means leather?I counter with the following two points.
1. The armor is not listed in the core rules and is it stated out in the Guide in a way that contradicts what I've said? I suspect not.
2. Quote from the core rules. Items not primarily of metal are not meaningfully affected by being partially made of mithral. Having studs does not qualify as having metal as it's primary construction.
1. Could you please point me to a core reference to, say, Mithral half-plate?
2. Could you please point me to a core reference that defines the "primary" material of any armor?
Y'all are way overthinking this in your argument. The prohibition on druids wearing metal armor is there for two reasons and two reasons only. Game balance and tradition (the first designers who envisioned them envisioned them in leather, and thus they have remained for 35 years or so). Attempts to understand the logic of it and to extend that logic to cover other cases are doomed to failure.
I have to say that I would lean toward the interpretation that mithril studded leather does not gain all the benefits listed for mithril, but I think the rules are not completely clear and reasonable GMs may disagree.
Most campaigns... you find magic items, not put in an order at MagicMart.Says who?
And really, there's a whole spectrum of campaign choices between the two.
Also: I don't think it's all that common to ban all the crafting feats -- which doesn't result in your caricature of a magic mart, but effectively? Magic mart.
Have to agree with DM. Much as I personally despise it, Magic Mart is widely used, and you can make a strong case that it is the default of the Pathfinder rules system.
I think the biggest thing that makes the bracers of armor seem clunky is the way they interact with the rules. The original bracers of armor merely added a +X AC modifier, and since it was a force modifier, I could understand it from a situational aspect; as you could gain benefit from it even if you were wearing armor.
A +1 AC bonus is usually between 2000x and 2500x gp for non-armors, so 1000x for a flat force effect isn't terrible, theoretically; even with alternatives.
In Pathfinder, they made it so you can add special abilities to the bracers, similar to enhancing an armor, except you can't add abilities that would add in a flat cost to armor (such as the various energy resistance or shadowed enhancements); making it more like an armor.
However, in Pathfinder, the whole thing shuts down if you have an armor bonus from something else. This, I think, is what makes it feel amazingly clunky. Bonuses don't stack, but when was the last time you saw a bonus from one thing completely shut down a bonus from something else? Does casting shield remove the benefits from your magic shield? Does having a shield mean you can't have shield active to protect against incorporeal creatures?
As written, if you're wearing +1 bracers of light fortification, and you wear some leather armor (+2 AC), the bracers shut down and cease functioning. If you wore padded armor, they don't. If you're wearing +2 bracers of light fortification and a +1 padded armor of slick shadows invulnerability and cold resistance, you get the benefit of both (light fortification, slick, shadowed, cold resistance, and a +2 force armor bonus to your AC. However, a +2 padded armor shuts it down.
It just acts amazingly bizarre. :S
EDIT: It's lost its ability to be a corner case, shuts down if you're wearing even mundane armors (so its force effect is semi-useless to 90% of classes - and you couldn't use them while being disguised as guards in a castle, for example), and seems to just want to be armor that isn't.