Armors and shields made from mithral have their armor
check penalties decreased by 3 (to a minimum of 0).
Weapons and armors fashioned from mithral are always
masterwork items.
Masterwork versions of armor or shields have its armor
check penalty lessened by 1.
Does mithral armor have a total decrease of 3 or 4 to the armor check penalty?
The total decrease is 3. The benefits for being masterwork are already added into the description (as is the cost for being masterwork).
For an example, see the mithral full plate of speed in the magic items section. It has an ACP of -3, while a normal full plate has an ACP of -6.
A total decrease of -3. If you look at the entry in magic items for elven chain (which is unenchanted) as an example, its made of mithral.
Its check penalty is reduced to -2 from -5, the normal for chainmail.
Lincoln Hills wrote: Three. Thank you for the quick response.
Can you provide any official information to back this up?
Thank you in advance!
Shoemaker wrote: Lincoln Hills wrote: Three. Thank you for the quick response.
Can you provide any official information to back this up?
Thank you in advance! NINJA'D (twice!)
The reduction does not stack.
The likely reason they call it out as being always masterwork is so that such items are always enchantable.
Shoemaker wrote: Thank you for the quick response. Can you provide any official information to back this up? Yeah, it was a little blunt, wasn't it? Sorry about that.
The reason they mention the fact that it is masterwork, is that you cannot add the masterwork quality, and further reduce the ACP, as the quality is already there, and all the reductions are already factored in.
blackbloodtroll wrote: The reason they mention the fact that it is masterwork, is that you cannot add the masterwork quality, and further reduce the ACP, as the quality is already there, and all the reductions are already factored in. AND that it can be enchanted as is.
3 is probably what was intended, but the text could've been more explicit about it.
I assume one of the other reasons to say its always master work is anyone crafring it has to do the crafting for master work. I actually avood crafting like the plague but its a seperate check or such right?
Mojorat wrote: I assume one of the other reasons to say its always master work is anyone crafring it has to do the crafting for master work. I actually avood crafting like the plague but its a seperate check or such right? AAAAAND we have a third reason. Good catch. I, like you, avoid crafting like the plague. Not because the DCs are too high or the crafting is too expensive... But because it takes too damn long!
The three reasons that mithral mentions that any armor is masterwork are:
1. To avoid people going for 4 ACP reduction
2. For enchanting purposes
3. For crafting the armor in the first place
@Ascalaphus: I agree that it could have been clearer, but a lot of the rules are slightly unclear. When you look at the circumstancial evidence, ie. the mithral armor examples under magic armor RAI becomes crystal clear.
Now personally speaking I think RAW is very important, but when RAI is as clear as this with circumstancial evidence and it doesn't contradict RAW, then I see no reason for clarification.
A 4 reduction would turn almost any medium armor into something anyone could wear without penalty (the penalty for nonproficient armor use is applying ACP to attack roles). So, barring full arcane casters and monks, anyone could grab it then without investing anything. We already have shields that do this kind of thing, so having armor that does it too would make the whole purpose of gaining proficiencies kind of moot.
Admittedly, they could do that anyway if they invested a trait (Armor expert) to further reduce it to 0... but that is at least some investment.
lemeres wrote: A 4 reduction would turn almost any medium armor into something anyone could wear without penalty (the penalty for nonproficient armor use is applying ACP to attack roles). So, barring full arcane casters and monks, anyone could grab it then without investing anything. We already have shields that do this kind of thing, so having armor that does it too would make the whole purpose of gaining proficiencies kind of moot.
Admittedly, they could do that anyway if they invested a trait (Armor expert) to further reduce it to 0... but that is at least some investment.
There is also the Comfort Enchantment Which can be tacked on for a flat +5000 gold. With that enchantment, mithral, and the trait, even most heavy armor could be worn at almost no penalty.
revaar wrote: lemeres wrote: A 4 reduction would turn almost any medium armor into something anyone could wear without penalty (the penalty for nonproficient armor use is applying ACP to attack roles). So, barring full arcane casters and monks, anyone could grab it then without investing anything. We already have shields that do this kind of thing, so having armor that does it too would make the whole purpose of gaining proficiencies kind of moot.
Admittedly, they could do that anyway if they invested a trait (Armor expert) to further reduce it to 0... but that is at least some investment.
There is also the Comfort Enchantment Which can be tacked on for a flat +5000 gold. With that enchantment, mithral, and the trait, even most heavy armor could be worn at almost no penalty. Still, that means either finding it (bribes to the GM are an investment), or having a party member with craft arms and armor... which is certainly a different investment, but one none the less.
lemeres wrote: revaar wrote: lemeres wrote: A 4 reduction would turn almost any medium armor into something anyone could wear without penalty (the penalty for nonproficient armor use is applying ACP to attack roles). So, barring full arcane casters and monks, anyone could grab it then without investing anything. We already have shields that do this kind of thing, so having armor that does it too would make the whole purpose of gaining proficiencies kind of moot.
Admittedly, they could do that anyway if they invested a trait (Armor expert) to further reduce it to 0... but that is at least some investment.
There is also the Comfort Enchantment Which can be tacked on for a flat +5000 gold. With that enchantment, mithral, and the trait, even most heavy armor could be worn at almost no penalty. Still, that means either finding it (bribes to the GM are an investment), or having a party member with craft arms and armor... which is certainly a different investment, but one none the less. But "finding" it could either be gaining it as treasure or reward or simply finding it in a shop where you can buy it for gold... Or special order it in a shop. Not to say that you are in any way wrong. Just trying to illustrate that barring GM fiat it isn't that unfeasible that you could get a hold of this enchantment.
Necroluth wrote: The likely reason they call it out as being always masterwork is so that such items are always enchantable. No, the explicit reason is to point out that it is already masterwork and you can't make it masterwork.
James Risner wrote: Necroluth wrote: The likely reason they call it out as being always masterwork is so that such items are always enchantable. No, the explicit reason is to point out that it is already masterwork and you can't make it masterwork. Necroluth pointed to A reason for it to be called out as masterwork. You pointed to another as the only reason and denied that Necroluth was correct.
Are you telling me that if mithral wasn't automatically masterwork that we were still meant to understand that a mithral armor was immediately enchantable? Because by my reading without that clause in mithral it would in fact NOT be enchantable without the addition of masterwork. This would seem to suggest that the part about mithral always being masterwork is in there to make us understand that a mithral armor is immediately enchantable, meaning that Necroluth was actually correct...
Your own reason is very plausible too but your wording suggest that you believe that your reason is the ONLY explanation. If we accept Necroluth's sentence as correct then that would be incorrect aswell.
So as far as I can see you are wrong on two counts:
1. Saying that Necroluth is incorrect
2. Saying that yours was the only reason
This is of course dependent on you not knowing the reason from a first hand source ie the author.
Do you see how annoying it is that other people say that you are wrong? Try not to be so adamant about your position in the future. Notice how I even made sure that I never stated anything as "matter of fact", outside of what you and Necroluth actually wrote.
Lifat wrote: Do you see how annoying it is that other people say that you are wrong? Try not to be so adamant about your position in the future. Notice how I even made sure that I never stated anything as "matter of fact", outside of what you and Necroluth actually wrote. I used "matter of fact"-ness, because this has been well understood for close to what 13 years now?
All things "always masterwork" are immediately enchant-able and can not be made masterwork.
It is a very minority interpretation, and one that I think doesn't match with the rules well.
I'm generally very happy to follow on the trail of alternate rules interpretations, but in the case of very few people hold to that interpretation (like vital strike at the end of charges) it is probably not the best interpretation.
James Risner wrote: Lifat wrote: Do you see how annoying it is that other people say that you are wrong? Try not to be so adamant about your position in the future. Notice how I even made sure that I never stated anything as "matter of fact", outside of what you and Necroluth actually wrote. I used "matter of fact"-ness, because this has been well understood for close to what 13 years now?
All things "always masterwork" are immediately enchant-able and can not be made masterwork.
It is a very minority interpretation, and one that I think doesn't match with the rules well.
I'm generally very happy to follow on the trail of alternate rules interpretations, but in the case of very few people hold to that interpretation (like vital strike at the end of charges) it is probably not the best interpretation. I'm sorry... WHAT? What has been understood for close to 13 years now? If you are saying that we have known that mithral is automatically enchantable for 13 years, then I could say the EXACT SAME thing about your own statement about why mithral explicitly mentions that it is always masterwork.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
