Question concerning Mithril

[Lord Pendragon]

True enough it would appear that the proficiency type is not lowered by making an armor out of mithral. But what does this really mean? Anyone can wear any style of armor as long as they take the penalties associated with it.

Yes, but that penalty is harsh for any PC that needs to make attack rolls:

Nonproficient with Armor Worn: A character who wears armor and/or uses a shield with which he or she is not proficient takes the armor’s (and/or shield’s) armor check penalty on attack rolls and on all Strength-based and Dexterity-based ability and skill checks.

Mithral Full Plate would give a non-proficient PC a -3 on all attack rolls and the various skill checks mentioned.

And if the armor is masterwork quality (most likely with mithral) furhter reduces the armor check penalties by 1.

Weapons or armors fashioned from mithral are always masterwork items as well

Mithral armors are already masterwork, and the bonuses from being masterwork are already included in the mithral bonuses/penalty reductions.

 

[irdeggman]

Let's see the armor check penatlies for medium armors are in the range of -6 or -7 so it is still better than a medium armor in that regard.

If a character has to make an attack roll, what is he doing without the heavy armor proficiency in the first place? If it is becasue he is forced (not being a front line combatent) then this only makes sense.


I thought that they were always masterwork quality, but didn't find that phrase on first look.

Regardless it is still better than wearing a normal medium armor without the appropriate armor proficiency.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Regardless it is still better than wearing a normal medium armor without the appropriate armor proficiency.

True. Of course you're paying +9,000gp, so it should be better.

As a side note, if you lacked both the Medium Armor Proficiency and the Heavy Armor Proficiency, I'd apply the non-proficiency penalty twice. Once for each step of non-proficient. But this is certainly a House Rule. RAW, you could have no armor proficiencies, and your best bet would be to pick up Mithral Full Plate.

 

[irdeggman]

True. Of course you're paying +9,000gp, so it should be better.

As a side note, if you lacked both the Medium Armor Proficiency and the Heavy Armor Proficiency, I'd apply the non-proficiency penalty twice. Once for each step of non-proficient. But this is certainly a House Rule. RAW, you could have no armor proficiencies, and your best bet would be to pick up Mithral Full Plate.

Now that is a harsh penalty. A wizard in normal full plate would have a -18 attack penalty since he has no armor proficiencies. Ouch.


Now mithral full plate does have only a 25% arcane spell failure chance. Which is as good or better than any armor heavier than hide and it gives +3 (or better) to AC of over any medium armor and a max dex bonus as good as any medium armor heavier than hide.

So it would be the armor of choice for a fighter/wizard who is a close up combatant. Not good if he is a ranged person.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I agree with the folks that say that even though an armor "counts as" lighter armor, you still need the original proficiency to use it without penalty. In my view, proficiency with armor includes knowing when and how the armor you're wearing can be expected to turn or deflect blows, as opposed to when and how you need to take more active measures. I also think that in order to view armor proficiencies as being anywhere close to "worth a feat," the proficiency needs as much utility as possible, and that means retaining some penalties for not having it.

In support of the opposite argument, however, there are many WotC-published examples of armor that clearly take the opposite view. The latest that I read was in Underdark, where it was clearly stated that one of the specific armors was always treated as light armor, and indicated that meant it could be worn without penalty by someone with just the Light Armor proficiency. There have been several other examples that I can't specifically point to.

 

[Pickaxe]

Another implication of requiring the proficiency is that rogues cannot wear elfin chainmail without the medium armor proficiency, else they suffer the non-proficiency penalty. At least in previous editions, elfin chain was made available to rogues/thieves, with the equivalent of Armor Check penalties to their skills/thief abilities. I'd actually be inclined to take the opposite of the view espoused by most posters here, based on the idea that 3e/3.5e also intended mithril and elfin chainmail to be readily useable by rogues. Alternatively, elfin chainmail alone, not other medium armors of mithril, might be an exception to the requirement of the medium armor proficiency; otherwise you might find yourself with rogues wearing mithril breastplates and mithril banded mail.

--Axe

 

[Sejs]

Actually, if you look, Elven Chain in previous editions was only good for hiding in shadows and moving silently. It still gave you a hefty penalty if you wanted to do anything else thiefly. It was handy if you were expecting a fight and trying to be sneaky (or for rangers, who only had the sneaky thief skills to worry about anyway) - but the be-all, end-all of thief armors it wasn't.


Elven chain's day has come and gone. Nowadays it's all about the mithral chain shirt. Which, honestly, is about a hair's bredth worth if difference if you wanted to keep the flavor the same cross-edition. At one point the elves just wised up and said hey.. you know, if we just ditch the trousers and mantle off this armor, we can move a whole lot better without losing too much protection.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

At one point the elves just wised up and said hey.. you know, if we just ditch the trousers...we can move a whole lot better without losing too much protection.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

 

[The Amazing Dingo]

As the original thread opener with the problem, I just wanted to say 'Thanks' to everyone. The ideas and theories mentioned here have been a great help in the situation. It is definately appreciated!