Ranger Wearing Med. Mithral Armor?

[Runestar]

Actually, not. Any rule in a splat book that conflicts with a rule in a Core rule book is decided in favor of the Core rule book.

Not really. Dnd adopts a "the later rule supersedes the rest" approach. If a rule in a later splatbook contradicts that of the core rulebooks (or that of an earlier splatbook), the latter splatbook takes precedence. This is the whole concept behind books such as MIC and Rules compendium, which serve to clean up perceived flaws/shortcoming in the core rules.

Thus, a warblade could wear mithral fullplate with no penalties despite not being proficient in heavy armour since mithral fullplate is treated as medium armour for all intents and purposes.

 

[Kask]

Not really. Dnd adopts a "the later rule supersedes the rest" approach.

Actually not. It states in the DMG what books have rules precedents...

 

[irdeggman]

Actually not. It states in the DMG what books have rules precedents...

And the Rules Compendium specifically states that it trumps all which is a contradiction to the DMG.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Actually, not. Any rule in a splat book that conflicts with a rule in a Core rule book is decided in favor of the Core rule book.

True or not, it's irrelevant in this case, since there is no conflict between the DMG rule and Races of the Wild (or the FAQ).

 

[Wolf72]

wow ... it's like a recurring nightmare!

I remember this debate from when we first got the 3e DMG (that and natural enhancments)

 

[glass]

It's not. Jason stated his intention to make that explicit in a post.

You did say 'intention'. Sorry, I should have read your post properly!



glass.

 

[Kask]

True or not, it's irrelevant in this case, since there is no conflict between the DMG rule and Races of the Wild (or the FAQ).

Interesting. I didn't see where in the DMG material type changes a piece of armour into a different type. I must have an old DMG 3.5 edition.

 

[irdeggman]

Interesting. I didn't see where in the DMG material type changes a piece of armour into a different type. I must have an old DMG 3.5 edition.

Does the DMG specifically state that it doesn't?

Does it specifically state that required proficiencies (for armors) are not changed?

If it doesn't so state then there is no conflict because the other books would be considered "clarifications" or "add ons" but there is no conflict.

A pretty strong case could be made that the "intent" is that armors are changed in all aspects.

The example text states

Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations (for example, whether a barbarian can use her fast movement ability while wearing the armor or not).

Thus the answer to the OPs's question is that a ranger can still use his abilities when wearing mithral armor that makes the armor category into the appropriate type since it specifically works for "limitations" like the barbarian (and the ranger's text is almost identical).

Note that barbarians are not proficient in heavy armors and their fast movement ability applies if they are wearing light or medium armors, but not heavy.

Also anyone can wear any type of armor - having a proficiency eliminates the penalty on attack rolls and Str & Dex based checks based on the Armor Check penalty.

 

[Kask]

Does the DMG specifically state that it doesn't?

Does the DMG specifically state that being a dwarf doesn't turn you into a god?

Not a good point to argue a rule from.

 

[irdeggman]

Does the DMG specifically state that being a dwarf doesn't turn you into a god?

Not a good point to argue a rule from.

Yes it is. If another supplement book stated that being a dwarf turned you into a god then it would.

I did not state adding in rules or statements that are not present - I said that since the DMG does not address it and another source does that there is no conflict in the rules.

If the DMG specifically stated that the armor is not changed for proficiency purposes then you would have had a great point. But it does not and the Sage even pointed out that the rules were not as specific as they should have been.