Mithril studded leather

[Pielorinho]

It sometimes becomes a little difficult to talk about "getting away with" or "taking advantage of" roleplaying. It is much easier to talk about "getting away with" a rule.

I agree, although I have a much more permissive attitude toward it, I think. Rather than keep a tight leash on the PCs, I'd rather give a loose leash to the NPCs.

But I don't let people get away with not roleplaying: the game just doesn't progress until they clarify for me what they're saying. No punishment, no penalty on the role; but they gotta say something if they want their character to say something.

Daniel

 

[Goolpsy]

I hate diplomacy...

Dm: "finally you get to meet the mayor"
Player: "I use diplomacy on him so he will give us his guards"
DM: "Roleplay it first.."
some chat later
Player: "I want alittle more... i'll just diplomacy to try to change his mind and be abit more openminded"
DM: "Argh okay then"
Player: "38, So now he will give me all his guards for free and let me rule the town for a day"
DM: "No.. he agrees that u might need more men but it will have the same cost per man."

btw i wouldn't allow a mithril studded or well... he could get the small metal part made mithril... but im not sure it would change anything... maybe.. and just maybe.. give it 5% less spell failure... If he manages to persuade me well.. i might go as far as giving him 1 higher max dex... but.. that will require ALOT of effort.

Which remind me that there should be (dont know if there already is) some leather type that works kinda like mithril just for leather...

 

[Lord Pendragon]

KD is right on this one, although it's hardly game breaking if you choose to allow it.

My feelings exactly. I would never include this in my list of House Rules preceding a new campaign, but if a player came to me after the game started, I'd probably allow it.

 

[KarinsDad]

But I don't let people get away with not roleplaying: the game just doesn't progress until they clarify for me what they're saying. No punishment, no penalty on the role; but they gotta say something if they want their character to say something.

I have another player who often does the following:

Player: "I'll ask him about the horses."
DM: "Ok, then do so."

 

[ARandomGod]

How would you have ruled in this particular case?

How I would have ruled:

I would have allowed it, first, and second I would have stated specifically that it only mitigates the difference between leather and studded leather. I would also make it only cost 1/2 the "listed" amount... or 500GP.

Leather has a max dex of 6, and no armor penalty (AP). Studded leather a max dex of 5, and an AP of -1. Now, make that studded with mithril and you can remove the additional penalties that mithril imposed, but you can't get a max dex of higher than 6 on it, as it's still got a normal leather component.

Edit: Nonlethal already stated most of my point (I posted without reading first. I like to give my initial impression without being influenced sometimes).

Additionally, I like Pielorinho's attitude of "say yes" when you can. So when I can come up with a good justification for why and how, I'll do it. I think that indeed metal is a largish component of studded leather, it has to be. And if that metal adds to encumberance, weight, ASF, then mithril can be used to help offset that addition. It just can't offset that addition more than the original penalty. And since mithril composition offsets more than the metal in studded leather adds, I'd allow you to use it to make the armor and treat the armor statistically as if it were normal leather. Now, this is a pretty big thing, realistically speaking... I might go ahead and charge the full price of 1000 gold instead of 1/2 as I originally thought.

 

[nittanytbone]

I would let them make Masterwork Studded Leather Armor with Mithril Rivets.

So, -1 to the AC check penalty (its masterwork), and minus 2.5 lbs, for a surcharge of 500 GP x 2.5 lbs = (1250 GP).

The only benefit would be dropping 2.5 lbs of weight. The ASF chance comes from the bulkiness of the leather, not necessarily the weight of the rivets, IMHO. Casters would be better off buying a bunch of scrolls of mage armor.

 

[wuyanei]

After reading everyone's opinions (and searching for a few pictures of studded leather armor on google), I am convinced. Now, since the ruling is already made, I will not change it -- too much trouble, and it isn't game breaking either way. However, I now agree that a better ruling would be for mithril studded leather to have the same stats as leather armor, but with +1 AC bonus.

Ah well. Next time, I suppose.

Thanks, everyone!
Yanei Wu

 

[Staffan]

However, I now agree that a better ruling would be for mithril studded leather to have the same stats as leather armor, but with +1 AC bonus.

I'd just like to point out that studded leather consists of metal rivets attached to a soft leather backing, while leather armor consists of leather that's been boiled in oil in order to harden it. So I wouldn't necessarily see a problem with leather armor being harder to move in than mithral-studded leather (assuming I'd allow it in the first place, which I probably wouldn't).

 

[wuyanei]

Heh. Thats my player's original arguement!

 

[ARandomGod]

I'd just like to point out that studded leather consists of metal rivets attached to a soft leather backing, while leather armor consists of leather that's been boiled in oil in order to harden it. So I wouldn't necessarily see a problem with leather armor being harder to move in than mithral-studded leather (assuming I'd allow it in the first place, which I probably wouldn't).

Interesting arguement... I can see it conceptually. Of course, for balance reasons I would still not let it be any better than leather armor. Specifically for those high-dex builds. Even granting +1 base, nonmagical AC (compared to leather armor) for only 1000K is really a very very generous act, without making it BETTER than leather.