
loaba |

Masterwork Leather has two distinct advantages, one is crunch and the other is fluff.
Crunch - if you want you're armor to be magical someday, it's gonna need to be of Masterwork quality
Fluff - isn't it frikken awesome when your Ranger skins the giant wyvern and makes armor from his hide? You can craft metal armor, sure. But it's not the same as knowing your armor was made by you, from a creature you vanquished.

doctor_wu |

Doesn't masterwork studed leather better in all ways than a +1 leather armor for the price. There is if you find masterwork studed leather on soemeone I would just sell it. From an optimization standpoint a mithral shirt is better in every way including price weigth armor bonus same armor check penalty as a +1 leather armor okay is that really an advantage? and you can enchant the mithral shirt as it is masterwork quality. The only thing the two have in common is they have the same arcane spell failure chance.

loaba |

Doesn't masterwork studed leather better in all ways than a +1 leather armor for the price. There is if you find masterwork studed leather on soemeone I would just sell it. From an optimization standpoint a mithral shirt is better in every way including price weigth armor bonus same armor check penalty as a +1 leather armor okay is that really an advantage? and you can enchant the mithral shirt as it is masterwork quality. The only thing the two have in common is they have the same arcane spell failure chance.
Leather is always better than Studded Leather (or Brigandine, as I like to call it) if you have A.) low STR and B.) crazy-retarded high DEX.

doctor_wu |

doctor_wu wrote:Doesn't masterwork studed leather better in all ways than a +1 leather armor for the price. There is if you find masterwork studed leather on soemeone I would just sell it. From an optimization standpoint a mithral shirt is better in every way including price weigth armor bonus same armor check penalty as a +1 leather armor okay is that really an advantage? and you can enchant the mithral shirt as it is masterwork quality. The only thing the two have in common is they have the same arcane spell failure chance.Leather is always better than Studded Leather (or Brigandine, as I like to call it) if you have A.) low STR and B.) crazy-retarded high DEX.
Actaully a mithral shirt is still a lower price than a +1 leather armor has a better armor bonus. Weighs less than +1 leather armor same arcane spell failure same max dex bonus of +6 both have no armor check penalty And the +1 leather armor costs more by 60 gold pieces. and you get a better armor bonus. The two things the +1 leather armor has is less hardness only seven when +1 but they both have 20 hit points. Also its hard to screw with the mithral shirt with 15 hardness. At these low level where you have nonmagical armor how do you get dex to 22 where you take the penalty for max ac. I understand studed leather does way more but the mithral shirt ways so little.
I understand some GMs might not let you buy mithral chain shirt but it is superior to +1 leather armor.

![]() |
Hey everyone,
I have a other question.
What benefit does masterwork leather armor have?
Plain and simple.... it's good enough quality to be enchanted. Otherwise it's the same as standard. That answer is pretty damm clear in the rules. You can't reduce armor check penalties if they're already at zero. and armor can't be enchanted if it's not masterwork quality.

mdt |

mdt wrote:Yep, 0 ACP means nonproficiency has no drawback.Pendagast wrote:on another note, if you put a wizard in leather armor without the proficency, whats the draw back?Arcane Spell Failure
Same reason sorcerers and wizards buy Mithral bucklers as soon as they can. 0 ACP, 0 Arcane Failure, +Shield bonus.

Pendagast |

Alorha wrote:Same reason sorcerers and wizards buy Mithral bucklers as soon as they can. 0 ACP, 0 Arcane Failure, +Shield bonus.mdt wrote:Yep, 0 ACP means nonproficiency has no drawback.Pendagast wrote:on another note, if you put a wizard in leather armor without the proficency, whats the draw back?Arcane Spell Failure
Seems loop holey (even thou we've used it before)

mdt |

mdt wrote:Seems loop holey (even thou we've used it before)Alorha wrote:Same reason sorcerers and wizards buy Mithral bucklers as soon as they can. 0 ACP, 0 Arcane Failure, +Shield bonus.mdt wrote:Yep, 0 ACP means nonproficiency has no drawback.Pendagast wrote:on another note, if you put a wizard in leather armor without the proficency, whats the draw back?Arcane Spell Failure
Oh, I agree, it's a bit cheesy...
On the other hand, it's not usable by certain classes. Monk for example, they get penalties for wearing armor, not light armor, any armor.

![]() |

mdt wrote:Seems loop holey (even thou we've used it before)Alorha wrote:Same reason sorcerers and wizards buy Mithral bucklers as soon as they can. 0 ACP, 0 Arcane Failure, +Shield bonus.mdt wrote:Yep, 0 ACP means nonproficiency has no drawback.Pendagast wrote:on another note, if you put a wizard in leather armor without the proficency, whats the draw back?Arcane Spell Failure
Leather armor would still have a 10% spell failure chance. The only benefit of MW a leather armor is to get....well spiffy looking armor. I think some are confusing MW effects with Mithral effects.

Hobbun |

5, 10, whatever it's still incredibly low and is the same whether you have the proficiency or not.
Maybe for yourself it is low, but you’d be surprised how often 10% will come up. Someone who has played an arcane caster more than once, I have never worn any kind of item that gives me a percentage chance for spell failure. That is my lifeblood and what I do, I am not going to wear something to risk me failing 1 out of 10 times if I can help it.

Pendagast |

Pendagast wrote:5, 10, whatever it's still incredibly low and is the same whether you have the proficiency or not.Maybe for yourself it is low, but you’d be surprised how often 10% will come up. Someone who has played an arcane caster more than once, I have never worn any kind of item that gives me a percentage chance for spell failure. That is my lifeblood and what I do, I am not going to wear something to risk me failing 1 out of 10 times if I can help it.
In our gaming experience spells get lost all the time, AoOs, failed spell craft checks etc.
At low level some leather armor can greatly increase a wizards survivability especially when you are out of spells and using a longbow as your back up.

Hobbun |

Well yes, you can lose spells in those other instances you listed, as well. However, this is just another a factor added to the pile, and one that easily be avoided or not even necessary (in wearing armor).
Yes, you can run out of spells and become more combat oriented, but just like flinging spells, I think a low level Wizard/Sorcerer that puts himself in a situation where he gets attacked is a dead caster, or at least an extremely hurt one.
I guess it just depends on your play style. As a caster, I have usually been pretty good about keeping myself out of the way of melee/ranged attacks. Also, usually the times that a Wizard/Sorcerer is going to resort to bow attacks, the foes will concentrate more on more dangerous melee and other ranged attackers.

![]() |
Same reason sorcerers and wizards buy Mithral bucklers as soon as they can. 0 ACP, 0 Arcane Failure, +Shield bonus.
"Boy, Study that wizard over there... the one with the bright shiny shield? That's the mark of a failure, hiding behind some pale imitation of a warrior's stance and a warrior's toy, a failure who does not truly live to his Art."
Keran Greymantle to his apprentice.

![]() |
They can use armour without proficiency?
Read the rules about armor proficiency and your question will answer itself.
A character who is wearing armor with which he is not proficient applies its armor check penalty to attack rolls and to all skill checks that involve moving. Arcane spell failure applies regardless of proficiency.

![]() |
Helaman wrote:They can use armour without proficiency?Read the rules about armor proficiency and your question will answer itself.
A character who is wearing armor with which he is not proficient applies its armor check penalty to attack rolls and to all skill checks that involve moving. Arcane spell failure applies regardless of proficiency.
Yep... does seem a bit light on the penalty side. Any suggestions on house ruling this so it doesnt seem like an irrelevant slap on the list.

![]() |
LazarX wrote:Yep... does seem a bit light on the penalty side. Any suggestions on house ruling this so it doesnt seem like an irrelevant slap on the list.Helaman wrote:They can use armour without proficiency?Read the rules about armor proficiency and your question will answer itself.
A character who is wearing armor with which he is not proficient applies its armor check penalty to attack rolls and to all skill checks that involve moving. Arcane spell failure applies regardless of proficiency.
A 10 percent failure on all somatic spellcasting seems like a slap on the wrist to you? I'd hate to see what you consider heavy punishment. Remember we're talking leather armor... even at master work it's just 2 lousy points of armor class, considerably inferior to mage armor spell.

![]() |
There was an enchantment in 3.5 called Twilight, which reduced spell failure on armor by 10%. Slapping that on a mithril chain shirt, means you get to wear a fairly good set of armor with no arcane spell failure.
For any interested, it was in the Magic Item Compendium.
Yes but that takes this discussion out of Pathfinder and into the 3.5/OGL topic area.

E I |
E I wrote:Yes but that takes this discussion out of Pathfinder and into the 3.5/OGL topic area.There was an enchantment in 3.5 called Twilight, which reduced spell failure on armor by 10%. Slapping that on a mithril chain shirt, means you get to wear a fairly good set of armor with no arcane spell failure.
For any interested, it was in the Magic Item Compendium.
You're right. My bad. I thought he was asking for a suggestion on a house rule to make the penalty less strict, not more strict. And I thought, what does it matter where a rule comes from, if you're just going to adapt it into your set of house rules.
Anyway, polling for suggestions on house rules should not be in the Rules forum, and they should re-post the appropriate question in the appropriate community forum.

![]() |
LazarX wrote:E I wrote:Yes but that takes this discussion out of Pathfinder and into the 3.5/OGL topic area.There was an enchantment in 3.5 called Twilight, which reduced spell failure on armor by 10%. Slapping that on a mithril chain shirt, means you get to wear a fairly good set of armor with no arcane spell failure.
For any interested, it was in the Magic Item Compendium.
You're right. My bad. I thought he was asking for a suggestion on a house rule to make the penalty less strict, not more strict. And I thought, what does it matter where a rule comes from, if you're just going to adapt it into your set of house rules.
Anyway, polling for suggestions on house rules should not be in the Rules forum, and they should re-post the appropriate question in the appropriate community forum.
The OP was asking in a context that seemed to be a purely Pathfinder rules question about masterwork leather armor and as long as the answers were purely in terms of Pathfinder it was on topic and appropriate. But many forget that despite it's lineage, Pathfinder is becomeing increasingly distinct from 3.5, and in my opinion that's a good thing.

![]() |
A 10 percent failure on all somatic spellcasting seems like a slap on the wrist to you? I'd hate to see what you consider heavy punishment. Remember we're talking leather armor... even at master work it's just 2 lousy points of armor class, considerably inferior to mage armor spell.
Except they are getting all the benefits of Leather Armour use with only the standard penalties (in this case "0") WITHOUT using a feat.

![]() |
LazarX wrote:Except they are getting all the benefits of Leather Armour use with only the standard penalties (in this case "0") WITHOUT using a feat.
A 10 percent failure on all somatic spellcasting seems like a slap on the wrist to you? I'd hate to see what you consider heavy punishment. Remember we're talking leather armor... even at master work it's just 2 lousy points of armor class, considerably inferior to mage armor spell.
And again... it's not that big a deal. Mage Armor still kicks butt over leather armor and offers protection against touch attacks which go right through it. And the armor still offers only 2 lousy points of armor class. And if a mage wants to look like a low class cutpurse and prove he's a failure as a spellcaster by blowing 10 percent of his spells as opposed to a respectable and skilled wizard, that's his problem.

doctor_wu |

Grick |

Mage Armor still kicks butt over leather armor and offers protection against touch attacks which go right through it.
Mage Armor protects against incorporeal touch attacks, not regular touch attacks or ranged touch attacks like Inflict Light Wounds or Scorching Ray.

![]() |
LazarX wrote:Mage Armor still kicks butt over leather armor and offers protection against touch attacks which go right through it.Mage Armor protects against incorporeal touch attacks, not regular touch attacks or ranged touch attacks like Inflict Light Wounds or Scorching Ray.
True. which points out how much better the spell is, especially at the beginning levels.

![]() |
Scribbling Rambler wrote:I agree. Better than normal leather, plus I believe the max dex bonus is increased, right?It makes your coin pouch 3 pounds lighter! ;)
The benefit is that it can be enchanted.
No it is not. the only game effect besides being suitable for enchantment is the lowering of the Armor Check Penalty, which already being zero has no effect for leather armor.

Spahrep |

Dont forget the RP aspect. I saw it in this thread in passing.
If a NPC sees people in armor that looks 'special' or of high quality, they have a better chance of passing themselves off as someone with importance vs some rag tag adventurer. We've had cities that have divisions by wealth / class, PCs in the upper end who looked like they didn't belonged there got harassed by guards.
Its 100% GM dependent, but it does play a bit into our games.

![]() |
Dont forget the RP aspect. I saw it in this thread in passing.
If a NPC sees people in armor that looks 'special' or of high quality, they have a better chance of passing themselves off as someone with importance vs some rag tag adventurer. We've had cities that have divisions by wealth / class, PCs in the upper end who looked like they didn't belonged there got harassed by guards.
Its 100% GM dependent, but it does play a bit into our games.
Perhaps, but masterwork leather armor just makes you look like an accomplished cutpurse or thug. If you're looking to pass yourself off as somone important, what you're socking for is courtier garb... and the bling that goes with it.
This is touched with in Ars Magica. Magi generally travel wearing obvious wizard robes. While this may give them stares from some quarters it generally gives them a measure of deference. Magi who dress in armor, aside from dealing with the fatigue and encumbrance penalties risk being treated as common warriors and are more likely to have swords raised against them in conflicts.

KaeYoss |

ya but thats only 5 percent and thats the same for someone with the proficiency
Getting +2 to your AC (over getting bracers of armour) really sucks compared to losing every 10th spell you cast (going with the actual failure chance of 10%). That spell can be an important one. And it's statistical every 10th spell. Murphy's Law dictate that it happens more often than that, especially if we're talking about important spells.
I'd rather get mage armour and cast away!

![]() |

Dont forget the RP aspect. I saw it in this thread in passing.
If a NPC sees people in armor that looks 'special' or of high quality, they have a better chance of passing themselves off as someone with importance vs some rag tag adventurer. We've had cities that have divisions by wealth / class, PCs in the upper end who looked like they didn't belonged there got harassed by guards.
Its 100% GM dependent, but it does play a bit into our games.
Other RP aspect I can think of, it makes the wizard look less of a spell tosser in the initial observation. Coming from the Shadowrun philosphy, 'geek the mage first' rule, it can be a life saver in the initial surprise round of an ambush.
But that reason isn't really presenting much of why masterwork leather, on the RP front other than what Spahrep mentioned. Maybe one wants to wear something nicer when presented in front of the local magistrate/noble/etc? Part of the ensemble to not have it look out of place with an upscale outfit?

![]() |
Other RP aspect I can think of, it makes the wizard look less of a spell tosser in the initial observation. Coming from the Shadowrun philosphy, 'geek the mage first' rule, it can be a life saver in the initial surprise round of an ambush.
If your wizard wants to look nondescript than "masterwork" armor should definitely NOT be the choice, he should be wearing just normal beatup leather armor in that case.
The first spell he casts however will pretty much blow that cover anyway though, so the value at best is questionable.