Mithral Weapons

[Adjudicator]

[B]Mithral Weapons[/B]

Armors and Shields made from Mithral weigh half as much as their steel counterparts and are considered to be a catagory lighter; heavy to medium, medium to light. What about weapons? We know that weapons made primarily of steel such as swords weigh half as much, but are they considered to be a catagory lighter? I have a player in our group who has two scimitars, one is made of steel, the other mithra. I have been ruling that it is a light weapon, but the DMG does not specify. Am I in error?

 

[demajen]

Speaking of mithral, is it just me, or is a Mithral Shirt way better than Elven chain? Its lighter, has a better armour check penalty reduction and arcane spell failure figure, and it doesn't cost anywhere near as much. Am i missing something.

I don't believe it changes the size of the weapon, only the weight. Weight isn't the distinguishing factor with weapon sizes. I would keep the weapon size the same.

 

[Vocenoctum]

I like Mithril breastplates myself, but yeah, teh Elven Chain is kind of blah.

I'd not allow a weapon to be "light" simply because it weighs less. Look at the weights of the weapons and you'll see it doesn't bare out.

 

[pontus]

Mithral doesn't make a weapon "light", it just makes it weigh less, and weight isn't the only thing that matters. The shape and size of the weapon also give you trouble.

A light mace weigs six pounds and is considered light. A rapier weighs three pounds but is not.

A handaxe weighs five pounds and is light, a longsword weighs four but is not.

 

[Wolf72]

estoy de acuerdo

Speaking of mithral, is it just me, or is a Mithral Shirt way better than Elven chain? Its lighter, has a better armour check penalty reduction and arcane spell failure figure, and it doesn't cost anywhere near as much. Am i missing something.

I don't believe it changes the size of the weapon, only the weight. Weight isn't the distinguishing factor with weapon sizes. I would keep the weapon size the same.

price difference: light mithral armor is +1k, medium is +4k ... (iirc).

oh ... just agreeing with you ... in this thread http://www.enworld.org/messageboards/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4753&pagenumber=2 I (me+others) came up with some alternate armor rules ... because as you point out, one of the leading Medium armors isn't really that much better than the best light armor.

basically the AC modifier was increased (along with a moderate increase in price) for medium armor. Heavy also got a very simple to use DR rating and greater price increase. After a certain point price becomes a lot less of a burden, and this was a way to sort of make the cost last a bit longer, as well as making more of a distinction between light/medium/heavy armor.

 

[Adjudicator]

Favor mithral breatplate myself, but as a wizard have little use for it, as I am wearing bracers of armor.

Damajen
"I don't believe it changes the size of the weapon, only the weight. Weight isn't the distinguishing factor with weapon sizes. I would keep the weapon size the same."

Vocenoctum
"I'd not allow a weapon to be "light" simply because it weighs less. Look at the weights of the weapons and you'll see it doesn't bare out."

I will most likely not allow weapons to be catagorized as being lighter. The flip side of the arguement is this though, the only difference in mithral and steel armor IS the weight. Why should weight be the distinguishing factor in armor but not in weapons? Banded and splint armors are still as akward and cumbersome to move in, not nearly as form fitting as plate armors (breastplate, half-plate, and full plate) or flexible as mails (chain shirts, chain, and scale) so why are they reduced other than the rules stating that they just are?

Not trying to press my point, just looking for clarification? I don't use dual weapons when I do play so it doesn't affect me, but it will affect two players in my group. appreciate the responses.

 

[DarkJester]

I think the main reason that weapons are not (and should not be) made a step lighter by being made of mithiril is for game balence. Take for instance a mithirill (huge) greatsword,its damage would be 2d8, in place of the 2d6 with no other cost besides the mithiril. That alone is not to bad, but the potential for abuse in the two weapon fighting style is horrible. Would you want your players dual wielding bastard swords as a small weapon?

 

[Umbran]

Why should weight be the distinguishing factor in armor but not in weapons?

Because, generally, one does not hold one's armor in one's hand and try to hit someone with it.

They are rather apples and oranges. For the game's purposes, the geometry of the weapon plays a greater role in it's use than it's mass. This actually makes at least some sense for slashing and piercing weapons.

Remember - the rules are an abstraction. There is some attempt to at least be reasonable and plausible. But the actual mechanics of armor and weapons are dreadfully complicated.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Well, think of it like this, a lighter weapon might strike faster, but it will have less weight, so overall energy is the same. Based on design of the weapon as well as the swing.


Perhaps an exotic weapon with mithril as a requirement that could compensate for the lighter form?

 

[Wolf72]

I think the fact that mithral weapons only weigh 1/2 as much is fine ... a heavy mace won't burden your character as much.

if you house rule that mithral weapons get the +1 enhancement for MW then it's that much better.