|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The character can't tumble in medium armor (but since this is mithral, he can).
Tehnically you can tumble in medium or heavy armor so long as they don't slow you.
You can move at full speed by increasing the DC of the check by 10. You cannot use Acrobatics to move past foes if your speed is reduced due to carrying a medium or heavy load or wearing medium or heavy armor. If an ability allows you to move at full speed under such conditions, you can use Acrobatics to move past foes.
Hence dwarves always being allowed to tumble. (They're probably not good at it in heavy armor with the ACP - but they can try.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The character can't tumble in medium armor (but since this is mithral, he can).Tehnically you can tumble in medium or heavy armor so long as they don't slow you.
You can move at full speed by increasing the DC of the check by 10. You cannot use Acrobatics to move past foes if your speed is reduced due to carrying a medium or heavy load or wearing medium or heavy armor. If an ability allows you to move at full speed under such conditions, you can use Acrobatics to move past foes.Hence dwarves always being allowed to tumble. (They're probably not good at it in heavy armor with the ACP - but they can try.)
Dwarven armor master fighters. Heavy armor acrobats
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its pretty awesome how people add interpretation as to what a completely inclusive statement means... /facepalm"for the purposes of" is the exact opposite of a completely inclusive statement.
Yes but for the purpose of "movement and other things. except proficiency" Is an inclusive statement. It's like saying "this is that for purpose of everything but one thing".
Here are some words they could have used for "clarity" what they meant without increasing word count if they meant something other than what they said.
"for movement and class abilities"
"for movement and enchantments"
"for everything but enchantments and proficiency"
"for everything but class abilities and proficiency"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is another spectacular example of people pretending that RAW says something different than it says.
A mithral breastplate is light armor for all limitations, except that it requires Medium Armor Proficiency. The wording could not possibly be more clear. It even says "all other limitations." If you would like to houserule that in your game, mithral armor has different rules, that is your prerogative. However, as is so often the case, on the rules questions forum, people are interested in answers as they relate to the default, unmodified rules of the game. In this instance, the rules of the game are explicit.
You can absolutely have a suit of +1 brawling mithral armor. You'll take armor check penalties on your attack rolls unless you know how to wear medium armor, but you're wearing light armor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can absolutely have a suit of +1 brawling mithral armor. You'll take armor check penalties on your attack rolls unless you know how to wear medium armor, but you're wearing light armor.Or - as I mentioned above - you take the Armor Expert trait.
Which is a great tactic, but not really relevant to the rules query at hand. ;)
But the limitation for the enchantment is a limitation. ;)
On the enchantment.
Just like certain class features have limitations that are not based on the armor but rather the armor type (light, medium, heavy).
So really the question is if changing the materials only affects limitations associated with the armor, or does it affect other things that have limitations based on armor type?
Note that there is Elven Chain that is treated in all ways as light armor.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So really the question is if changing the materials only affects limitations associated with the armor, or does it affect other things that have limitations based on armor type?
"... all limitations"?
So really the question is if changing the materials only affects limitations associated with the armor, or does it affect other things that have limitations based on armor type?
I don't understand what you're saying here. Can you give examples of what the two different things are?
If it were that clear cut, Mark would agree, but he does not.
There will always be people who misunderstand things, regardless of how clear they are made. Universally perfect consensus is impossible.
So really the question is if changing the materials only affects limitations associated with the armor, or does it affect other things that have limitations based on armor type?
You could just read the entry for Mithral and see whether it says it counts as "one category lighter for the purpose of movement and other limitations."
Spoiler Alert: It does.
Asking the question a second time after it's been answered does not change the text in the rulebook.
| 39 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. |
Which is why I recommend hitting the FAQ button.
FAQ'd.
Need to know if Traits like Defender of the Society (+1 armor when wearing Medium or Heavy armor) applies to Mithral Breastplate or if Steel Skin (can don/remove Heavy armor in 1/2 the time) applies to Mithral Full Plate. (Side note, armors are listed individually on the don/remove chart, not by category. So Full Plate takes 4 minutes to don, and requires help. With the trait, Full Plate would take 2 minutes to don, and require help. If Mithral Full Plate is "Medium" it would take 4 minutes to don Mithral Full Plate, but 2 minutes to don regular Full Plate)
Need to know if Enchantments that cost a set value based on Armor type use the lighter version or not. Buoyant is 500g for Light and 1000g for Medium and Heavy.
Need to know if Mind Buttressing or Bolstering (Medium or Heavy armor only) can be applied to Mithral Breastplate.
Need to know if a Heavy only enchantment (didn't look through everything) can be applied to Mithral Full Plate.
I don't understand what you're saying here. Can you give examples of what the two different things are?
So really the question is if changing the materials only affects limitations associated with the armor, or does it affect other things that have limitations based on armor type?
You can't run x4 speed in heavy armor. It is pretty clear to me this is a limitation of the armor.
Bards and others can cast without arcane spell failure as a class feature when in light armor. This is a class ability based on armor type. The limitation is on the class ability, not the armor. It does not change the ASF of the armor -- a Bard/Sorcerer would still have ASF when casting sorcerer spells.
Rangers can use their combat feats when in light or medium armor. Once again, a class ability with a limitation on it.
A lot of people are taking the most generous interpretation -- that for any sort of limitation anywhere that involves armor with the specific exception of proficiency you treat mithral as one lighter category.
Add to that everything that Canthin has listed above.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me rephrase myself. Mithral changes the limitations of the armor.... The applicability of Brawling is a limitation on the enchantment itself, not the armor.
Can you give examples of what you feel the difference is? Because I feel that bards being able to cast in light armor is a limitation on the class itself, and not the armor. So I'm not seeing what you mean and what your difference and distinction is.
It seems to me that the limitation in question is on the Brawling enchantment, not on the armor.
It seems to me that making armor out of mithril lets it count as one category lighter for all limitations (of the armor) except proficiency. This does not automatically extend this exemption to everything else armor related - this exemption applies to the armor itself and not to auxiliary things that might or might not be applied to that armor, each of which might have its own limitations.
Since the Brawling limitation is on Brawling, not on the mithril armor, it doesn't seem that Brawling can be applied to mithril medium armor as the mithril limitations exemption doesn't apply.
(if you could somehow make the actual Brawling enchantment itself out of mithril, then the mithril exemptions would apply to the limitations of the Brawling enchantment - but you can't, so this is just a parenthetical thought exercise).
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
But by that logic does not applying to anything.
Mithral doesn't apply to sleeping. That's a limitation to sleeping, not armor.
Mithral doesn't apply to class abilities. That's a limitation of class abilities, not armor.
Mithral doesn't apply to movement. That's a limitation of movement, not armor.
It seems to me that the limitation in question is on the bard spellcasting, not on the armor.
It seems to me that making armor out of mithril lets it count as one category lighter for all limitations (of the armor) except proficiency. This does not automatically extend this exemption to everything else armor related - this exemption applies to the armor itself and not to auxiliary things that might or might not be applied to that armor, each of which might have its own limitations.
Since the bard spellcasting limitation is on bard spellcasting, not on the mithril armor, it doesn't seem that Bard spellcastingcan be applied to mithril medium armor as the mithril limitations exemption doesn't apply.
(if you could somehow make the actual bard spellcasting itself out of mithril, then the mithril exemptions would apply to the limitations of the bard spellcasting - but you can't, so this is just a parenthetical thought exercise).
Let me rephrase myself. Mithral changes the limitations of the armor.... The applicability of Brawling is a limitation on the enchantment itself, not the armor.Can you give examples of what you feel the difference is? Because I feel that bards being able to cast in light armor is a limitation on the class itself, and not the armor. So I'm not seeing what you mean and what your difference and distinction is.The differences is that armor limitations refer to what the character can do with said armor and the ability to wear said armor, whether the character is proficient with it, how much the armor restricts the character. The armor does not limit enchantment, it is the enchantment that is selective.
The fact that you can hit a human with charm or enlarge person, and not an aasimar is a limitation of the spells, not of either race.
BUT if the aasimar has the scion of humanity to make it count as a human then it is a valid target. Like a mithral making the armor a light armor ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me rephrase myself. Mithral changes the limitations of the armor.... The applicability of Brawling is a limitation on the enchantment itself, not the armor.Can you give examples of what you feel the difference is? Because I feel that bards being able to cast in light armor is a limitation on the class itself, and not the armor. So I'm not seeing what you mean and what your difference and distinction is.The differences is that armor limitations refer to what the character can do with said armor and the ability to wear said armor, whether the character is proficient with it, how much the armor restricts the character. The armor does not limit enchantment, it is the enchantment that is selective.
The fact that you can hit a human with charm or enlarge person, and not an aasimar is a limitation of the spells, not of either race.
That logic doesn't exactly hold up if you think about it in a little more detail.
Brawling is applied to Light Armor. This is because Brawling requires the armor to be lighter right?
Then for what reason would Mithril not make it possible for Light Armor to function with Brawling?
Because Mithril makes Medium Armor Light.
Heavy armors are treated as medium, and medium armors are treated as light, but light armors are still treated as light. This decrease does not apply to proficiency in wearing the armor.
The only thing that doesn't apply is called out. That is for the purposes of Proficiency the Armor retains it's category.
People are reading way too much into their own interpretation than what the text actually says.
Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations.
Heavy armors are treated as medium, and medium armors are treated as light, but light armors are still treated as light.
This decrease does not apply to proficiency in wearing the armor.
What is all this "Oh but the Brawling enchantment is specifically it's own limitation it has nothing to do with the armor?"
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing that makes my GM call it medium armor is that it still requires the prof. They bolster their claim by the fact that there is Elven Chain which a bit more blunt about its qualities.
Back in 3.5e there wasn't a proficiency exclusion, the armor was light for ALL purposes. Elven Chain continues that tradition as an exception to PF's normal rules with mithral. Why? Heck if I know. Perhaps because chainmail is not the optimal medium armor anyway, and thus legacy > existing rules? Or perhaps it was just an oversight?
Either way, the fact remains that proficiency is the sole exception for non-unique mithral armors, and only as a balancing modification PF introduced.
(I would also recommend making Armor Expert function only when proficient for similar reasons, but that is a house rule.)
|
Actually it does not say "all," only "other restrictions." Is that supposed to be read "all," "some," "many," "other restrictions as defined," etc?'Other limitations' is by nature inclusive. If we go down that road where 'other' isn't inclusive, then we need an FAQ to tell us whether every single other possible limitation is intended to work with it or not.Indeed. I would assume it was written that way precisely because they wanted it to remain as open and broad as possible, to avoid any issues with needing to cover every single thing that armor category might limit (including things that hadn't been written yet).
Personally, I would assume the intention was to cover any limitations that aren't explicitly excluded (such as proficiency).
Or it could mean they did not want to open it to "all" other limitations not knowing what would follow and left it to additional individual rules listings to define if they were inclusive or not. Its not like simply adding the word "all" to the text would have impact the cost of the book or anything, but it would certainly clarify the intent. It's easy to argue that was an intentional omission.
One thing I think we all need to remember when trying to parse the technicalities of the words is that the rules are not necessarily written using precise, technical language. The designers have said they wanted to avoid the game reading like a college text book. So, sometimes, the inflections and grammatical word relationships are not specifically accurate (from a technical writing perspective). This leaves it to us, the reader, to try and discern the intent (RAI). It is further complicated by the fact that many rules are intentionally written vague so gamers can interpret it however is best for their own games. This all leads to table variation, which IMO is a good thing. However, it becomes problematic in campaigns like PFS where consistency is intended. Granted, Paizo does not "owe" us an FAQ entry for every request the community has, but sometimes its nice.
Considering the number of posts in this thread vs. the number of FAQ clicks, a little help from the community would be useful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe what we need is a "FAQ/question" thread in PFS that gets questions like these with the "official houserule" for PFS. And that those are in effect until an actual FAQ comes that's different.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The limitations rule when written was clearly framed in terms of how the armor is used. Mithral lightened the armor so the armor got to be counted as "light" in term of usage, how fast you could move with it, the armor check penalty and so on. It was never intended to be used in terms on how enchantments could be applied to it.
Can you explain how you know it wasn't meant to be which enchantments could be applied? To me the limitation rule when written would be that anything that is limited to light armor works for medium mithral. The ACP isn't based on the type armor but is tied to each individual armor and reduced a set amount for mithral. And how come which enchantments can I put on this armor doesn't fall under your "and so on"?
I am not seeing how you have a distinction between a bard casting in light armor and brawling being on light armor.|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The limitations rule when written was clearly framed in terms of how the armor is used. Mithral lightened the armor so the armor got to be counted as "light" in term of usage, how fast you could move with it, the armor check penalty and so on. It was never intended to be used in terms on how enchantments could be applied to it.Let me rephrase myself. Mithral changes the limitations of the armor.... The applicability of Brawling is a limitation on the enchantment itself, not the armor.Can you give examples of what you feel the difference is? Because I feel that bards being able to cast in light armor is a limitation on the class itself, and not the armor. So I'm not seeing what you mean and what your difference and distinction is.
The mithral rules were originally written for 3.5e, where it was quite clearly intended to apply for all purposes. PF only added a specific exception in proficiency for balance reasons and left the rest untouched. As such, assuming they meant anything *other* than proficiency to be exempt would be the leap, not the other way around.
Let's keep the FAQs coming, we got 20 in a day. This needs like 60 more before it's even kind of considered for investigation.
|
|
Maybe what we need is a "FAQ/question" thread in PFS that gets questions like these with the "official houserule" for PFS. And that those are in effect until an actual FAQ comes that's different.
That's a good sentiment, but Mike has a habit of not ruling on something that is a core rule as opposed to a PFS specific one. He does not want to get caught making a ruling, even one limited to PFS, that could be contrary to the intention of the core rules. He would rather leave the status quo (table variation) and leave the rules clarifications to the design team.
Maybe what we need is a "FAQ/question" thread in PFS that gets questions like these with the "official houserule" for PFS. And that those are in effect until an actual FAQ comes that's different.That's a good sentiment, but Mike has a habit of not ruling on something that is a core rule as opposed to a PFS specific one. He does not want to get caught making a ruling, even one limited to PFS, that could be contrary to the intention of the core rules. He would rather leave the status quo (table variation) and leave the rules clarifications to the design team.
Well if the current rule is "Ask the GM" Isn't he like the head GM for this game? If we have so much "table variation" abilities why not make a standardized ruling? That is what the rules say to do right now. If they come and change the rules by saying there's only 1 right way, then PFS follows that 1 way when it's the rule.
It runs the issue of ruling one way then getting flipped and we have SLA early entry all over again where you might get a sure it works ruling and then people get told by the design team no on the brawling issue. Or you might get told no and the design team might say yes and people will be upset over having used gold and prestige for things they might have other wise used it on.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well if the current rule is "Ask the GM" Isn't he like the head GM for this game? If we have so much "table variation" abilities why not make a standardized ruling? That is what the rules say to do right now. If they come and change the rules by saying there's only 1 right way, then PFS follows that 1 way when it's the rule.Maybe what we need is a "FAQ/question" thread in PFS that gets questions like these with the "official houserule" for PFS. And that those are in effect until an actual FAQ comes that's different.That's a good sentiment, but Mike has a habit of not ruling on something that is a core rule as opposed to a PFS specific one. He does not want to get caught making a ruling, even one limited to PFS, that could be contrary to the intention of the core rules. He would rather leave the status quo (table variation) and leave the rules clarifications to the design team.
It's simply not the job of Campaign Leadership to make rules.
That's the Design Team's job.
PFS will abide by whatever decision the Developers make.
Personally, I'd rather the PFS peeps spend their time creating interesting content for us to play, rather than acting as a duplicate rules team.
The limitations rule when written was clearly framed in terms of how the armor is used. Mithral lightened the armor so the armor got to be counted as "light" in term of usage, how fast you could move with it, the armor check penalty and so on. It was never intended to be used in terms on how enchantments could be applied to it.Let me rephrase myself. Mithral changes the limitations of the armor.... The applicability of Brawling is a limitation on the enchantment itself, not the armor.Can you give examples of what you feel the difference is? Because I feel that bards being able to cast in light armor is a limitation on the class itself, and not the armor. So I'm not seeing what you mean and what your difference and distinction is.
This is a great example of someone adding something to a description that isn't their, thanks LazarX. There is nothing in the description that states any of this.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
This is a great example of someone adding something to a description that isn't their, thanks LazarX. There is nothing in the description that states any of this.
None of that is stated, but much of it is interpreted and various dev team have agreed with that interpretation.
Ultimately this is going to experience table variances, that is how RAW works. Not everyone can agree on the meaning of a couple sentences, so you end up with differences of opinion on what the rules as written mean.
I beg you to help with this issue, but clicking FAQ on the posts with high FAQ counts and help us reach a final answer on who is right.
|
Beware the clicking of FAQs, lest you be locked into an interpretation you disagree with.
Eh, it's a toss up mechanically. Either it's light armor and you can use the brawling enchantment with with it, or it's medium and you can use the Defender of the Society trait and hosteling enchantment.
I'd rather it be one or the other than have to deal with table variation, especially considering how common mithral armor is.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Why beware of it?Because not all GMs are as flexible as I.
If you (as a player) don't agree with the interpretation, that is fine. You are welcome to find a GM like TOZ to run it the way you like.
The others who would rather have a clear understanding, and take the rules as they are, will be happy with a ruling.