Scouring the boards and there seems to be a (albeit not unanimous) consensus that a mithral breatplate has a -1 ACP, and the masterwork -1 is already subsumed into that. I cannot see the rules support for this anywhere. An inference can be drawn from the mithral full plate of speed, but that is not an actual rule.
Weapons or armors fashioned from mithral are always masterwork items as well; the masterwork cost is included in the prices given below
It tells us the cost is inclded in the price, but doesn't mention the effect being included. If you had a mithral dagger, you would expect it to get +1 to hit, despite not being spelt out.
They are not the same source (one is material and one is craftmanship) so stacking shouldn't be an issue.
Can anyone explain why mithral breastplate does not have 0ACP?
Scouring the boards and there seems to be a (albeit not unanimous) consensus that a mithral breatplate has a -1 ACP, and the masterwork -1 is already subsumed into that. I cannot see the rules support for this anywhere. An inference can be drawn from the mithral full plate of speed, but that is not an actual rule.
It's subsumed in the material statement that mithral arms and armor are ALWAYS considered masterwork. The price for mithral already includes the masterwork quality. You only get the +1 to hit, not a plus 2.
It's subsumed in the material statement that mithral arms and armor are ALWAYS considered masterwork. You only get the +1 to hit, not a plus 2.Scouring the boards and there seems to be a (albeit not unanimous) consensus that a mithral breatplate has a -1 ACP, and the masterwork -1 is already subsumed into that. I cannot see the rules support for this anywhere. An inference can be drawn from the mithral full plate of speed, but that is not an actual rule.
Not quite on point.
If people assert that mithral subsumes the masterwork bonus into the written benefits, then a mithral dagger does not get +1 to hit, it only has half the weight as that is the only listed benefit.If they are always considered masterwork ("as well", remember) then you should get the +1 to hit from being a masterwork weapon, and by extension the additional -1 ACP for being a masterwork armour.
It's subsumed in the material statement that mithral arms and armor are ALWAYS considered masterwork. You only get the +1 to hit, not a plus 2.Scouring the boards and there seems to be a (albeit not unanimous) consensus that a mithral breatplate has a -1 ACP, and the masterwork -1 is already subsumed into that. I cannot see the rules support for this anywhere. An inference can be drawn from the mithral full plate of speed, but that is not an actual rule.
Not quite on point.
If people assert that mithral subsumes the masterwork bonus into the written benefits, then a mithral dagger does not get +1 to hit, it only has half the weight as that is the only listed benefit.If they are always considered masterwork ("as well", remember) then you should get the +1 to hit from being a masterwork weapon, and by extension the additional -1 ACP for being a masterwork armour.
Which are INCLUDED in the bonuses for mithral. you get the +1 to hit for being a weapon and the -1 ACP which is subsumbed by the reduction of ACP for being mithral. You don't get to double down on either property.
The inclusion of masterwork in the text is for two purposes only.
1. to be part of the factor for construction costs and time to craft.
2. to certify that such arms and armor are ready to be enchanted.
Thanks for the replies Drahlania.
Which are INCLUDED in the bonuses for mithral. you get the +1 to hit for being a weapon and the -1 ACP which is subsumbed by the reduction of ACP for being mithral.
Where is it stated that ACP is subsumed?
And why assume that the masterwork for armour is subsumed in the description, but the +1 to hit from being masterwork weapon isn't?
How can you ignore the "mithral are always masterwork items as well" line?
I'm struggling to think of a reading for "as well" that doesn't mean "in addition to".
It's just not adding up for me.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In situations where different interpretations of the English language arise it becomes helpful to look for actual examples in print.
I am aware of no examples that show otherwise. While admittedly that in itself does not provide a full proof conclusion, it is certainly stronger evidence for one side than the other.
Have you seen anything that leads you to believe Mithral should be -4 instead?
It's -1.
But you're free to run your home game any way you like.
The penalty is definitely -1.
There is a preponderance of rogues with the Armor Expert trait and mithral breastplate (and no medium armor proficiency) in PFS that can attest to the accuracy of that.
|
There is a preponderance of rogues with the Armor Expert trait and mithral breastplate (and no medium armor proficiency) in PFS that can attest to the accuracy of that.
And pretty much every other character with light armor prof. who doesn't plan to multiclass. (Even moreso since Brawling was nerfed so that Brawlers have less reason to stick with a chain shirt.)
There is a preponderance of rogues with the Armor Expert trait and mithral breastplate (and no medium armor proficiency) in PFS that can attest to the accuracy of that.And pretty much every other character with light armor prof. who doesn't plan to multiclass. (Even moreso since Brawling was nerfed so that Brawlers have less reason to stick with a chain shirt.)
Hell, anyone that doesn't have specific rules against (metal) armor can use that. Bards, magis, swashbucklers,... hell, even some of the monk archetypes that get rid of flurry.
Pretty much only wizards, sorcerers, witches (...who don't decide "I'll just stick with hexes and keep the spells as problem solvers in situations where I can take my armor off"), and most monks lack the ability to enjoy the expertness and mithral glory.
I find little problem with this. You are using a trait (a 'half feat' as it were) to get a rather limited version of a full feat (which requires really specific equipment, which has a definite price tag on it, which means you at least have to go for 4-6 levels before using a resource you spent during character creation). And this trick never breaks past medium armors.
My homegames a mithral breastplate has always been ACP 0.
I really would like to use the breastplate for a PFS rogue, so I would like to understand this, before I start arguing it with a stranger.
The penalty is definitely -1.
There is a preponderance of rogues with the Armor Expert trait and mithral breastplate (and no medium armor proficiency) in PFS that can attest to the accuracy of that.
That could only tell me that the rule is widely misunderstood :)
Have you seen anything that leads you to believe Mithral should be -4 instead?
I didn't think anyone thought it was only -3 until it cropped up in conversation the other day.
I still haven't seen anything, other than secondary applications, that causes me to believe I am misreading the rules (I shan't repeat myself here :) ).
If we go back to a mithral weapon, if you removed the wording about it being masterwork as well, you would not give it +1 to hit. The fact that it mentions masterwork, and everyone grants the weapon +1 to hit, I'm really confused as to why anyone wouldn't also grant the armour it's masterwork benefit as well.
Please help me to understand where I'm wrong, because the written rule to me just doesn't support the widely accepted conclusion.
I just can't see what I'm missing. There are enough differences between elven chain and mithral chain to be inconclusive IMO, and the NPC codices are hardly so free of errors as to inspire confidence.
The 3.5 FAQ called it out as MW being subsumed in the -3 a.c.penalty. While it's not called out in PF, I always went with 3.5 ruling.
|
|
I just can't see what I'm missing. There are enough differences between elven chain and mithral chain to be inconclusive IMO, and the NPC codices are hardly so free of errors as to inspire confidence.
If you choose to ignore that one for whatever reason - just check out the Mithral Full Plate of Speed
It still has -3 ACP, which is exactly 3 less than normal full plate. Unless you want to suggest that the Haste enchantment somehow increased the ACP.
That seems pretty dang conclusive to me.
Full Plate of Speed draws an inference from a secondary application that does not match the rules as (I understand them to be) written.
It's a contradiction, I admitted that in my first post, but in general the rule takes precedence over secondary sources.
If the 3.5 FAQ is binding I will abide by it, but it also contradicts the mithral text and the way the rule is implemented for weapons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just can't see what I'm missing. There are enough differences between elven chain and mithral chain to be inconclusive IMO, and the NPC codices are hardly so free of errors as to inspire confidence.
Yes they do, you're just chosing to ignore the text of the mithral property itself. As written below.
Mithral is a very rare silvery, glistening metal that is lighter than steel but just as hard.
When worked like steel, it becomes a wonderful material from which to create armor, and is occasionally used for other items as well. 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. A character wearing mithral full plate must be proficient in wearing heavy armor to avoid adding the armor's check penalty to all his attack rolls and skill checks that involve moving. Spell failure chances for armors and shields made from mithral are decreased by 10%, maximum Dexterity bonuses are increased by 2, and armor check penalties are decreased by 3 (to a minimum of 0).
Since ALL items of mithral ARE masterwork, there would be no reason to assume that there would be such a thing as a non-masterwork mithral item, by rules, such an item CAN NOT EXIST.
Therefore the rules text tells you EXACTLY what the properties of a generic mithral weapon or armor are. Special named items such as elven chain may provide specific exceptions and are stated such in their description.
If an armor is made of mithral it's ACP is 3 less than that of the steel variety, not 2, not 4. 3 is the number that it shall be.
dragonhunterq, it's not adding up for you because you are putting your own interpretation into it. You're really reaching here. You want someone to prove that you're wrong, but no one yet has agreed that the ACP is -0 and you haven't proved that you are right.
Bring your PFS rogue to the table and then ask your GM what the ACP is. Your GM's ruling holds a lot more weight than what actual strangers on the internet say.
There's a reason that Mithril Agile Breastplate is a thing.
So I get that non-masterwork mithral armour does not exist, I'm just not sure I'm the one ignoring the text of mithral itself.
It is masterwork "as well".
No qualifiers, no indication at all that it already includes the masterwork quality, the wording 'as well' strongly indicates it doesn't already include that modifier.
If you take away the line about mithral items being masterwork, you would not give a masterwork weapon +1 to hit. You would also still treat the ACP as -3. So that tells me that that line does something above and beyond telling you it is good for crafting magic items from.
Maybe I am reading too much into "as well", and the fact that it appears you are treating armour differently to anything else mithral. I just can't see where my logic falters. It seems so straightforward to me.
^^^ this right here.
Mithral adds plus +2 max dex and -2 acp. Because it is always masterwork without exception, it adds an additional -1 acp for a total of +2 max dex and -3 acp. The book implies a use of common sense and basic mathmatic and reading comprehension to suggest that mithral armor gives what it gives, and a mithral weapon would provide a +1 to hit and count as silver for Damage Reduction.
GM1990 testing my arguments here, where there is a wealth of experience and knowledge is surely sensible rather than going in blind. Especially when I wasn't even aware it was an issue until a few days ago.
Also, -1ACP is a static modifier and works exactly the same for every piece of armour. That's how 'ACP' works.
Cavall, All of the modifiers for mithral precede the mention of masterwork. If they followed on I would not have the same strength of conviction that I do. Common sense and plain english place modifiers in a sequence. You apply them in that sequence.
Baja, If the masterwork is retroactively applied you would expect some mention or indication of that, it is certainly not something that is easily inferable IMO, and I'm not sure how you justify it as 'common sense'.
In general I'm a fan of rules being self evident, you should not have to use a secondary source to prove that what a rule actually states is actually wrong.
I'm really not sure how -3+-1=-4 is in any way a lack of basic mathematics. Determining what numbers you are applying has nothing to do with maths skill.
However despite that, it is clear that my reading is at the very least unpopular, so I will cede this battlefield and try to win over people on a one by one basis :).
To all I thank you, especially Drahlania for their patient and polite replies.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Full Plate of Speed draws an inference from a secondary application that does not match the rules as (I understand them to be) written.
It's a contradiction, I admitted that in my first post, but in general the rule takes precedence over secondary sources.
If the 3.5 FAQ is binding I will abide by it, but it also contradicts the mithral text and the way the rule is implemented for weapons.
I'm sorry, just because you don't understand the rules correctly isn't grounds to keep arguing with you.
On what grounds do you find that the ACP should be reduced by 4 that is substantive enough to outweigh multiple written sources which put the total adjustment for mithral at -3.
Because if your only argument is the way you read the rules says its 4, then we go back to the fact that your understanding is incorrect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I am reading too much into "as well", and the fact that it appears you are treating armour differently to anything else mithral. I just can't see where my logic falters. It seems so straightforward to me.
Well if the feedback in this thread and my personal experience is any indicator your the only one who thinks that Mithral BP should be ACP 0.
I have never seen anyone who draws this same conclusion in my play experience. As has been pointed out over and over, the description of Mithril gives stats that already assume the effects of masterwork on mithril since EVERYTHING made of mithril is already masterwork.
Either take the trait on your PFS rogue or take the -1.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never seen this position before.
I'm confident that 100% of all Paizo NPC builds, all character builders (Herolab), and all other 3rd party NPC builds match the concept that their is no additional -1 for the mithril items for their being masterwork.
@dragonhunterq, can you provide a single example of a mithril item using the 3 + 1 logic?
the description of Mithril gives stats that already assume the effects of masterwork on mithril since EVERYTHING made of mithril is already masterwork.
You know what they say about assumptions :)
and even then, why is it a bad idea to challenge assumptions every now and then?
You then proceed to state no secondary source is given by anyone. This is also incorrect as the actual items showing applications are in fact secondary sources of the basic math.
I suspect you have misunderstood me here, or I don't fully understand what you are trying to say, because this does not appear to accurately reflect my position. I don't think I've ever said anything about "no secondary sources is given by anyone". I accept and acknowledge all the secondary sources, I just feel that they all conflict with the rule as written.
I'm pretty sure I cannot be accused of wilfully ignoring any of the material - wilfully ascribing a lesser or greater importance to aspects of the material than others maybe, but ignoring it, no.
I've never seen this position before.
I'm confident that 100% of all Paizo NPC builds, all character builders (Herolab), and all other 3rd party NPC builds match the concept that their is no additional -1 for the mithril items for their being masterwork.
@dragonhunterq, can you provide a single example of a mithril item using the 3 + 1 logic?
I'm an oddity for sure :)
To be fair, what would a counter example prove, it could also (and you would no doubt assert) that it was an error. Reading the rule should be sufficient - Items are an indicator of how the rule should be implemented but they aren't the rule itself, and when those items appear to be in conflict with the rule...Surely using third party material and secondary sources is not as strong an argument as the rule itself?
I am sensing some undertones of hostility, and from people whose opinions I respect. I am sorry if my questions and assertions have offended anyone, I am truly trying to understand and explain why I think the way I do. I am not just being bloody mindedly awkward, I can see why it may appear otherwise though... :)
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Also, here is a post by SKR talking about mithral breastplate ACP -1.
The reason I'm posting this is that he mentions a spreadsheet to calculate NPC stat blocks and there is no indication that he is aware of any rule making the ACP = 0. You would think that would be covered by the speadsheet if it were a thing.
I've never seen this position before.
I'm confident that 100% of all Paizo NPC builds, all character builders (Herolab), and all other 3rd party NPC builds match the concept that their is no additional -1 for the mithril items for their being masterwork.
@dragonhunterq, can you provide a single example of a mithril item using the 3 + 1 logic?
Hero Lab most definitely has it listed as -1.
I hope I'm not coming off as hostile when I say you're incorrect, just that I don't think you're right.
This is a general reply. I'd rather not call out any one comment primarily as it was not open hostility and in fairness it could just be defensiveness and/or the limitations of a text based medium.
So, whether you (plurally) were or were not the target of that comment don't sweat it. I can handle being told I'm wrong. It isn't the first time I've been on the wrong side of a discussion and I'm sure it won't be the last.
:)
|
I agree that there is nothing in the text which completely excludes either reading.
However, when you consider how common this and the other 'always masterwork' materials (e.g. adamantine, darkwood, dragonhide, etc) are, it becomes obvious that the hundreds of instances where masterwork does not stack with the stated bonuses for the material cannot ALL be mistakes.
Or... if they were then that would indicate that everyone who makes stat blocks for official publications has the rule 'wrong' (all in exactly the same way) and HAS since the game was first published... at which point the 'wrong' rule... would still be the rule.
I hope I'm not coming off as hostile when I say you're incorrect, just that I don't think you're right.This is a general reply. I'd rather not call out any one comment primarily as it was not open hostility and in fairness it could just be defensiveness and/or the limitations of a text based medium.
So, whether you (plurally) were or were not the target of that comment don't sweat it. I can handle being told I'm wrong. It isn't the first time I've been on the wrong side of a discussion and I'm sure it won't be the last.
:)
If it makes you feel any better, I had the same confusion when I first started trying to figure out how to apply mithral to armor. Eventually I found examples like the ones Nefreet listed earlier, and I became convinced that it was -3 total rather than -3 for being mithral and another -1 for being masterwork. I think people who came to Pathfinder via 3.5 may find it strange that someone would be unclear on this, but coming from 1st edition I found the wording confusing for the same reasons you are.
the description of Mithril gives stats that already assume the effects of masterwork on mithril since EVERYTHING made of mithril is already masterwork.You know what they say about assumptions :)
Oh I certainly do. But that does not apply in this case. When every poster disagrees with you and every published version of the item in question disagrees with your reading and when one of the game's publishers/writes themselves can be quote that your interpretation is wrong then I can say your assuming your correct when it is explicitly clear your not.
And before you start using platitudes to infer that I am an ass again perhaps you should learn the many ways the word 'assume' can properly be used. My use was not a supposition as you would infer but a statement that the full modifier for mithril as listed in the material description is just that. Inclusive of all details listed in the material description.
You may want to talk to Monty Python if your keen on continuing your argument.
So you are demonstrating, it doesn't grant the additional point that dragonhunterq suggests.their is no additional -1 for the mithril items for their being masterwork.Hero Lab most definitely has it listed as -1.
Correct.