Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="UltimaGabe" data-source="post: 2386834" data-attributes="member: 16019">Hey, everyone. Something came up in a recent D&amp;D game that kinda startled me, because the Rules-Lawyer side of me came up short on an otherwise logic-based decision. We were all making 18th-level characters for a one-shot adventure (the Lichqueen's Beloved, for those of you who know anything about the Incursion adventure path), and one of the players decided to give his character Celestial Armor (a great armor in the DMG that's essentially +3 chainmail that has a maximum dex bonus of +8, armor check penalty of -2, spell failure of 20%, counts as light armor, and lets you Fly as the spell once per day- not only that, but it's so light that it can be worn under clothes). The player, however, was creating a rogue-ish character, and was dissatisfied that it still had a -2 armor check penalty.&quot;Could I just have it made out of Mithral?&quot; he asked.Having played a character a long time ago that had Celestial Armor (a Barbarian with an unbelievable Dex), I spoke up, saying, &quot;It's already Mithral. That's why it's so light.&quot;We looked, however, and the description said no such thing. In fact, it says nothing about its material (except saying it's silver or gold, though I highly doubt that's the actual material it's made out of). It has the same stats as Mithral Chainmail (well, except for the higher Maximum Dexterity Bonus), but it's not listed as Mithral- in fact, the only thing that seems to give it its lightness is the fact that it's &quot;so fine&quot; as the description says. (And even if it IS made of Silver or Gold, obviously they're enchanted to be lighter than they naturally are, so who's to say Mithral couldn't be enchanted more than it is as well?) I told the DM (who often comes to me, the other DM in the group, for advice) that I thought it was way to cheesy to go and make it Mithral, and the player didn't mind keeping it as it was since the Armor Check penalty wasn't that bad anyway- but I thought I'd check and see if anyone else has had this problem before.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="UltimaGabe, post: 2386834, member: 16019"] Hey, everyone. Something came up in a recent D&D game that kinda startled me, because the Rules-Lawyer side of me came up short on an otherwise logic-based decision. We were all making 18th-level characters for a one-shot adventure (the Lichqueen's Beloved, for those of you who know anything about the Incursion adventure path), and one of the players decided to give his character Celestial Armor (a great armor in the DMG that's essentially +3 chainmail that has a maximum dex bonus of +8, armor check penalty of -2, spell failure of 20%, counts as light armor, and lets you Fly as the spell once per day- not only that, but it's so light that it can be worn under clothes). The player, however, was creating a rogue-ish character, and was dissatisfied that it still had a -2 armor check penalty. "Could I just have it made out of Mithral?" he asked. Having played a character a long time ago that had Celestial Armor (a Barbarian with an unbelievable Dex), I spoke up, saying, "It's already Mithral. That's why it's so light." We looked, however, and the description said no such thing. In fact, it says nothing about its material (except saying it's silver or gold, though I highly doubt that's the actual material it's made out of). It has the same stats as Mithral Chainmail (well, except for the higher Maximum Dexterity Bonus), but it's not listed as Mithral- in fact, the only thing that seems to give it its lightness is the fact that it's "so fine" as the description says. (And even if it IS made of Silver or Gold, obviously they're enchanted to be lighter than they naturally are, so who's to say Mithral couldn't be enchanted more than it is as well?) I told the DM (who often comes to me, the other DM in the group, for advice) that I thought it was way to cheesy to go and make it Mithral, and the player didn't mind keeping it as it was since the Armor Check penalty wasn't that bad anyway- but I thought I'd check and see if anyone else has had this problem before. [/QUOTE]

Verification